We performed a comparison between Google App Engine and OpenShift based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two PaaS Clouds solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is simple to use. It is much simpler than AWS. It is also very powerful."
"The WhatApp feature is the most valuable."
"The product's setup and deployment phases are easy."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward, considering that there is good documentation explaining the implementation part of it."
"Seurity features - unauthorized individuals are unable to access certain applications."
"Google App Engine's most valuable feature is self-management. You do not have to manage the infrastructure underneath where all the functions are happening, such as load balancing deployment and version management, they are managed by the system itself."
"The initial setup is okay. It's not too complex. Deployment took about one day."
"Administering App Engine is simple; it has intuitive UIs and a very scalable app engine."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is the great customer service and the ability for our team to get assistance when we need it."
"Security is also an important part of this solution. By default, things are running with limited privileges and securely confined to their own resources. This way, different users and projects can all use the same infrastructure."
"The company had a product called device financing, where the company worked as a partner with Google. It allowed customers to take mobile phones on loan or via credit. When we migrated those services to OpenShift in February last year, we were able to sell over 100,000 devices in a single day, which was very good."
"The security features of OpenShift are strong when in use of role-based access."
"I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones."
"The product's initial setup is very easy, especially compared to AWS."
"Two stand-out features are the security model and value-add features that don't exist in Upstream Kubernetes."
"What I like best about OpenShift is that it can reduce some of the costs of having multiple applications because you can just move them into small container applications. For example, applications don't need to run for twenty days, only to be used up by Monday. Through OpenShift, you can move some of the small applications into any cloud. I also find the design of OpenShift good."
"I would like a simpler deployment tool on laptops. It is a bit complicated at the moment. We know how to do it, but it could be easier to deploy it on laptops."
"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The support for the Indian region is not as good as compared to the support that is offered to the regions in Europe."
"I think there's still a lot that can be done with Google Meet and the video conferencing part of it. It could be more dynamic in terms of what can be done with it."
"There needs to be more directions in terms of how to use the solution."
"Data consumption of the device could be improved."
"Difficult to assess how pricing is managed."
"The only concern is that there is a number of the offerings which are built on their own proprietary technologies. With some of the offerings in Google Cloud, it's difficult to have a path to migrate to other cloud providers."
"OpenShift could improve by providing the ability to integrate with public cloud platforms. This way we can easily use the services that these platforms offer. For instance, Amazon AWS. However, all the three major hyper-scalers solutions offer excellent DevOps and CI/CD tooling. If there was an easy way to integrate with them it would be beneficial. We need a way to easily integrate with the monitoring and dashboard services that they provide."
"Latency and performance are two areas of concern in OpenShift where improvements are required."
"An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift."
"The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications... They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore."
"There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift."
"It would be great if it supported Bitbucket repositories too."
"I think that OpenShift has too many commands for running services from the CLI, and the configuration files are a little complicated."
"Its virtual upgrades are time-consuming."
Google App Engine is ranked 10th in PaaS Clouds with 23 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Google App Engine is rated 8.2, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Google App Engine writes "Simplifies app development process for businesses". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenShift writes "Provides us with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints". Google App Engine is most compared with Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, Heroku, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) and IBM Public Cloud, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud and Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). See our Google App Engine vs. OpenShift report.
See our list of best PaaS Clouds vendors.
We monitor all PaaS Clouds 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.