We performed a comparison between Google App Engine and Red Hat 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."Administering App Engine is simple; it has intuitive UIs and a very scalable app engine."
"The solution is serverless, so we don't have to operate it."
"Its ability to integrate with most devices helps users who have different or old devices."
"The initial setup is okay. It's not too complex. Deployment took about one day."
"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 WhatApp feature is the most valuable."
"It is simple to use. It is much simpler than AWS. It is also very powerful."
"Seurity features - unauthorized individuals are unable to access certain applications."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the security context constraint (SCC). The solution’s security throughout the stack is good. And security context constraints provide port-level security. It's a granular level of control, where you can give privileges to certain users to work on certain applications."
"Key features are WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure and the git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature is the auto scalers for all microservices. The feature allows us to place request limits and it is much cheaper than AWS."
"The most valuable feature is the high availability for the applications."
"We are able to operate client’s platform without downtime during security patch management each month and provide a good SLA (as scalability for applications is processed during heavy client website load, automatically)."
"I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones."
"In terms of implementation, OpenShift is very user-friendly, which is an advantage. We are using it along with GitLab for implementing CI/CD pipelines. That's a feature that other products also have, but in OpenShift, we find it good."
"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."
"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."
"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Difficult to assess how pricing is managed."
"There needs to be more directions in terms of how to use the solution."
"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."
"Some features of runtime don't work well in App Engine."
"The documentation and community are lacking for this product."
"Data consumption of the device could be improved."
"This solution could be improved by offering best practices on standardization and additional guidance on how to use this solution."
"It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory."
"I think that OpenShift has too many commands for running services from the CLI, and the configuration files are a little complicated."
"One of the features that I've observed in Tanzu Mission Control is that I can manage multiple Kubernetes environments. For instance, one of my lines of business is using OpenShift OKD; another one wants to use Google Anthos, and somebody else wants to use VMware Tanzu. If I have to manage all these, Tanzu Mission Control is giving me the opportunity to completely manage all of my Kubernetes clusters, whereas, with OpenShift, I can only manage a particular area. I can't manage other Kubernetes clusters. I would like to have the option to manage all Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift."
"If we can have a GUI-based configuration with better flexibility then it will be great."
"Credential not hidden, so people on the same group can view it."
"OpenShift's storage management could be better."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
Google App Engine is ranked 12th in PaaS Clouds with 23 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 54 reviews. Google App Engine is rated 8.2, while Red Hat 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 Red Hat 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 and IBM Cloud Private, whereas Red Hat OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Google Cloud. See our Google App Engine vs. Red Hat 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.