We performed a comparison between Amazon Elastic Container Service and Google Kubernetes Engine based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is easy to scale and implement and provides performance monitoring and management tools."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the ability to create revisions on the configurations."
"It has an Auto Scaling group feature. We can use this feature to have an Auto Scaling group to specify a minimum and maximum count for all types of configurations. Based on the specified values, Amazon Elastic Container Service scales the required CPU environmental metrics."
"I like the per-second billing."
"I like the tool's availability and automated scalability. I need to define the port numbers, and when I have a large load of requests, I can get automated scalability."
"Scalability and availability are the most valuable features of Amazon Elastic Container Service."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"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."
"The product has no downtime."
"It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best."
"GKE's plugin management and configuration sync are excellent features. The amount of data it provides is good, and I've been able to integrate it with the things I need."
"The initial setup is very easy. We can create our cluster using the command line, or using our console."
"The deployment of the cluster is very easy."
"The most valuable feature of Google Kubernetes Engine is how you can automatically scale and load balance."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable features are microservices and its acquisition rate, which is very useful for scaling perspective."
"We appreciate that it is quite easy to set up a Kubernetes cluster in Google Cloud, using the managed services within this solution."
"EC2 is not self-explanatory enough."
"There is room for improvement in the licensing costs. There can be better licensing costs."
"Amazon EC2 Container Service should include more enterprise project management features, typically available in an OpenShift environment."
"Amazon EC2 Container Service's security can be improved."
"Visualization is an important factor for me, and I don't think that the visuals within ECS are good enough because it doesn't show you all the details you might need to see at a glance."
"My company has faced some stability issues with Amazon EC2 Container Service."
"Since it is a managed service for container orchestration, it may limit our control over certain infrastructure functions."
"The solution needs to be more usable."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's cost should be improved because it is high."
"Google Kubernetes Engine is less stable in some highly complex deployments with many nodes."
"While the GKE cluster is secure, application-level security is an essential aspect that needs to be addressed. The security provided by GKE includes the security of communication between nodes within the cluster and the basic features of Kubernetes security. However, these features may not be sufficient for the security needs of an enterprise. Additional security measures must be added to ensure adequate protection. It has become a common practice to deploy security tools within a Kubernetes cluster. It would be ideal if these tools were included as part of the package, as this is a standard requirement in the industry. Thus, application-level security should be integrated into GKE for improved security measures."
"The monitoring part requires some serious improvements in Google Kubernetes Engine, as it does not have very good monitoring consoles."
"There is room for improvement in this solution. For example, auto-scaling can be complex. We expect it to be easier to set up and manage, even for our customers."
"One of the things I missed a bit is the visibility and availability of solutions. If I compare it to a different solution, it is a bit behind."
"The user interface could be improved."
"An area in which Google Kubernetes Engine could improve is configuration."
More Amazon Elastic Container Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon Elastic Container Service is ranked 8th in Container Management with 46 reviews while Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews. Amazon Elastic Container Service is rated 8.4, while Google Kubernetes 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 Kubernetes Engine writes "The auto-scaling feature helps during peak hours, but the support is not great". Amazon Elastic Container Service is most compared with OpenShift Container Platform, Microsoft Azure Container Service, VMware Tanzu Mission Control and Linode, whereas Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, Kubernetes, Rancher Labs, VMware Tanzu Mission Control and Trend Micro Deep Security. See our Amazon Elastic Container Service vs. Google Kubernetes Engine report.
See our list of best Container Management 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.
