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."It's quick and easy to have the solution working."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"Good documentation and very straightforward to implement and use."
"The most valuable feature, after using Amazon EC2 Container Service for two years, is to set the availability and also for network throughput."
"Implementing the product has helped me monitor the parameters. I utilize tools like CloudWatch and AWS systems to track these parameters. If any issues arise, I alert our developer team to address and resolve them. The product helps to have a global file system. Also, it helps in data replication from region to region."
"The solution has good performance."
"It is a highly stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Amazon EC2 Container Service has multiple valuable features like load balancers and autoscalers."
"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."
"Amazon EC2 Container Service's security can be improved."
"The solution needs to improve backup and pricing."
"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."
"Billing is extremely complex."
"The solution's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The solution can still be expensive, even with per-second billing."
"The existing domain-joined capability the solution provides during the initial boot-up of the compute should be streamlined and made a little robust."
"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, Linode and Google Kubernetes Engine, 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.
