We performed a comparison between Amazon Route 53 and Google Cloud DNS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Managed DNS solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Technical support from Amazon is very good...Overall, the product is stable."
"The product's initial setup phase was very easy."
"The scalability is the most valuable feature."
"We haven't faced any outages or issues directly related to Route 53. It has been 100% stable for me."
"The most valuable feature is that it works very well."
"You can host your zone and name servers here, and keeping track of records is easy."
"The initial setup is good and straightforward."
"We use Amazon Route 53 for dynamic naming and routing policy."
"The initial setup process is easy."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The tool is well integrated. We don’t need the interface of another provider. The product helps me manage my domain and write in Google Cloud."
"Google Cloud DNS continues to evolve based on customer feedback and technological advancements."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The scalability is good."
"It may not always be easy to integrate with on-premise infrastructure, especially with the complexity of the resolver and other factors involved. Improvements could be made to enhance the ability to integrate seamlessly."
"The solution’s pricing and technical support could be improved."
"The solution should include more robust and secure services for hardening sites."
"When we are looking at the model registry, it may be not clear sometimes. For example, if you use a single grid model and group or registry, it has a different SDK in the pilot. And it may be not so comfortable to use both of them because it is two different places for keeping things in order."
"There are no detailed logs, and they should implement that in the solution."
"Route 53 would be better if it had the ability to handle multiple requests at the same time because we have a lot of users. I would like that to be optimized in the next version."
"The product could improve its price."
"Streamlining and optimizing processes related to Procter, VPN workflows, and other subjects based on specific needs would allow for continual improvement and adaptation to the evolving requirements of the system."
"The cost of using Google Cloud DNS can be relatively high compared to other options, especially considering the cloud environment."
"It needs to provide better integration."
"The UX of the product is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"Migrating away from Google Cloud DNS can be difficult."
"The UI is tricky to understand for people who have not worked with DNS records. People with little to no experience with DNS records can find it hard to understand. For example, you need to know the hallmarks to input records since they need to be matched in a specific format."
"The solution's price could be better."
Amazon Route 53 is ranked 3rd in Managed DNS with 19 reviews while Google Cloud DNS is ranked 6th in Managed DNS with 6 reviews. Amazon Route 53 is rated 8.6, while Google Cloud DNS is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Amazon Route 53 writes "Provides clear documentation, easy to understand, simplifies management and efficiently handles our domain-related configurations and DNS records". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Google Cloud DNS writes "Constantly improving and adapting to customer needs". Amazon Route 53 is most compared with Azure DNS, Cloudflare DNS, Cisco Umbrella, Akamai Edge DNS and Neustar UltraDNS, whereas Google Cloud DNS is most compared with Quad9, Cloudflare DNS, Azure DNS, Cisco Umbrella and Verisign Public DNS. See our Amazon Route 53 vs. Google Cloud DNS report.
See our list of best Managed DNS vendors.
We monitor all Managed DNS 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.
