We performed a comparison between Amazon Elastic Container Service and Google Container Engine based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Amazon Web Services (AWS), VMware and others in Container Management."We primarily employ the Linux platform in terms of architecture. It utilizes its database, MySQL. Additionally, for CI/CD processes, we rely on Amazon CodeBuild. Furthermore, we use Amazon S3 storage to store specific static files. Currently, the system is running smoothly, and we don't actively perform any maintenance tasks as everything is automated."
"Amazon EC2 Container Service is a flexible product from Amazon. You can put it in the Auto Scaling group for high availability. There are also a lot of choices for pricing."
"The solution is quite scalable and allows you to launch multiple EC2s within minutes."
"I like Amazon EC2 Container Service's elasticity."
"ECS is flexible and easy to use."
"The product's most valuable feature is service discovery functionality. It is an excellent feature impacting cost reduction."
"The containerization is a valuable feature for us."
"In seven years, we have not faced a single second of downtime."
"The tool is very powerful, scalable, and easy to manage. Its autoscaling features helped us save costs."
"Support could be better with response time and knowledge of staff."
"The solution's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"I would like the product to improve integration with different platforms."
"The solution must improve backup and compatibility around OS like Windows and Mac."
"The orchestration of the workloads running in ECS needs improvement."
"The documentation and usage for the users can be better because for new users it can be very hard to understand and use the solution. They can add small images and accessories."
"For Amazon EC2 Container Service, providing the ability for users to select specific processor, memory, disk, and interface types might be an ideal feature. But, the practicality of offering all possible physical combinations is nearly impossible due to the underlying physical machines. AWS and Azure organize options into groups based on essential components like powerful processors or critical interfaces, considering physical restrictions. While expanding these choices is conceivable, it may not be feasible from a financial and practical perspective. Customers generally comprehend this limitation, as even in their own data centers, exact physical machine requirements are often a result of a combination of factors such as price, availability, and new machine generations."
"Google Container Engine needs to be able to manage network products."
More Amazon Elastic Container Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon Elastic Container Service is ranked 8th in Container Management with 46 reviews while Google Container Engine is ranked 15th in Container Management with 1 review. Amazon Elastic Container Service is rated 8.4, while Google Container Engine is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Amazon Elastic Container Service writes "An easy to compute solution that can be used to take complete workloads to the cloud". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Google Container Engine writes "Has autoscaling features that helps to save costs ". Amazon Elastic Container Service is most compared with Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform, Microsoft Azure Container Service, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Google Kubernetes Engine and Linode, whereas Google Container Engine is most compared with .
See our list of best Container Management vendors and best Containers as a Service (CaaS) vendors.
We monitor all Container Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.