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."Amazon Elastic Container Service serves the function it's supposed to serve."
"Once you get the procedure right, and set a pattern, it just works."
"ECS is a useful platform."
"Amazon Elastic Container Service is more stable."
"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."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the ability to create revisions on the configurations."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its scalability."
"Scalability and availability are the most valuable features of Amazon Elastic Container Service."
"The tool is very powerful, scalable, and easy to manage. Its autoscaling features helped us save costs."
"We noticed a problem where our container doesn't always run, and the traffic in our secured license exceeds 100%, leading to increased container costs. We are working to understand and reduce this traffic to control costs."
"The solution could provide more reliability."
"In the next release, they could add some customization options for high computer workloads."
"Probably, they should include automated graphing, and monitoring solutions."
"Since it is a managed service for container orchestration, it may limit our control over certain infrastructure functions."
"While it is generally stable, there have been some issues, especially when working on client projects where troubleshooting was needed."
"The product should improve its price."
"Amazon EC2 Container Service needs to improve the menu design. It needs to improve deployment with better documentation."
"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 14th 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 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.