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."Amazon EC2 Container Service has multiple valuable features like load balancers and autoscalers."
"The solution is quite scalable and allows you to launch multiple EC2s within minutes."
"Amazon Elastic Container Service is more stable."
"The containerization is a valuable feature for us."
"The product's most valuable feature is service discovery functionality. It is an excellent feature impacting cost reduction."
"Scalability and availability are the most valuable features of Amazon Elastic Container Service."
"Amazon ECS allows users to deploy and manage container applications like microservices or web applications on Amazon clusters. It's easy to install and designed for AWS targets, serving as a serverless container platform. It offers features such as automatic scanning, load balancing, and service discovery to help users manage their container applications."
"It's quick and easy to have the solution working."
"The product has valuable security features. It can connect with multiple DevOps tools."
"Before using this solution, it was a lot of manual tasks and a lot of people participated in the process."
"The solution is available across AWS, GCP and Azure and is seamless."
"We appreciate that it is quite easy to set up a Kubernetes cluster in Google Cloud, using the managed services within this solution."
"The feature that I like the most is the ease of use as compared to AWS. Its ease of use is very high, and I can quickly deploy clusters with a simple template."
"The product has no downtime."
"I am satisfied with the stability offered by the solution."
"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."
"Since it is a managed service for container orchestration, it may limit our control over certain infrastructure functions."
"I think that it would help if the vendor provided more use cases and explanations as to how ECS can be utilized."
"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."
"I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten. It easily dies."
"The solution's user experience and management are really bad."
"Sometimes, the instances fail under the ECS container cluster, and we have to manually go and find out the black sheep in the ECS container instance. We had an issue earlier where one of the instances under the ECS container cluster went down, and we were not able to identify that instance. The instance got terminated, but a new instance did not come up. Therefore, I had to manually get that instance up. It could be optimized better. In production, we normally cannot sustain such things. It can be optimized in terms of instances, durability, and serving the requests of customers."
"The solution's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Amazon EC2 Container Service's security can be improved."
"I would like to see the ability to create multiple notebook configurations."
"The monitoring part requires some serious improvements in Google Kubernetes Engine, as it does not have very good monitoring consoles."
"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 product could be cheaper."
"The solution does not have a visual interface."
"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."
"I use the Firebase tool with GKE and it would be helpful if the solution can give notifications when we reach the budget limit."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's cost should be improved because it is high."
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 Red Hat 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.
