We performed a comparison between Google Kubernetes Engine and Kubernetes 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."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 main advantage of GKE is that it is a managed service. This means that Google is responsible for managing the master node in the Kubernetes cluster system. As a result, we can focus on deploying applications to the slaves, while Google handles any updates and security patches. The fact that GKE is fully integrated into the Google ecosystem, including solutions such as BigQuery and VertexAI. This makes it easier for us to integrate these tools into our process. This integration ultimately speeds up our time to market and reduces the time and effort spent on managing infrastructure. The managed aspect of GKE allows us to simply deploy and utilize it without having to worry about the technicalities of infrastructure management."
"The deployment of the cluster is very easy."
"The most valuable feature of Google Kubernetes Engine is how you can automatically scale and load balance."
"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."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable feature is container deployment."
"The initial setup was very easy because it's like a Google platform as a service. It's just one button to set it up. The deployment took only a few minutes."
"This product has a rich toolset from the community including CNI plug-ins, Helm packages, operators, dashboards, various integrations, etc."
"All the current features are quite harmonic."
"We use it for various large microservice-based architectures and web services. That's the ideal use case, but it's suitable for any kind of service that can be decomposed and needs to be scaled. Of course, it's much easier to deploy services that are stateless. It"
"The most valuable feature of Kubernetes is the integration with other solutions, such as Formative and Grafana."
"The best feature is autoscaling. It's effortless to use for scaling deployment parts, CI/CD, etc."
"With the use of our blueprint, my experience with the initial setup has been a ten out of ten where one is difficult and ten is easy."
"The best thing about Kubernetes is that most of the containerized applications are centralized."
"The scanning and support network."
"The user interface could be improved."
"I would like the solution to integrate with another Kubernetes product. I would also like it to monitor other platforms. It needs to also include scale-up container in the tool's next release."
"The user interface is a bit confusing sometimes. You need to navigate between the various consoles we have. It's hard to figure out where things are. It's frustrating. The documentation could be a bit better."
"The monitoring part requires some serious improvements in Google Kubernetes Engine, as it does not have very good monitoring consoles."
"Our critique is that we have to do too much work to get the cluster production-ready."
"It needs to support load balancing."
"There is room for improvement in the cluster updates process. Specifically, when managing both non-production and production clusters, we need a sequential functionality."
"Their documentation is a little here and there. Sometimes, the information is not clear or updated. Their documentation should be a little bit better."
"Kubernetes is a bit complex, and there's a steep learning curve. At the same time, I cannot imagine how it could be easier. You need many add-ons to it, and the commercial releases of Kubernetes should address that."
"Lacks some scalability and more user-friendly operability."
"The user-interface in regards to the other solution can be improved."
"They should make documentation simpler for learning."
"Kubernetes could improve by having better integration with VMware solutions."
"The security of the solution is in its infancy and needs a lot of work."
"It's good for bigger organizations, but for smaller organizations or a few workloads, it may be too heavy, not easy to deploy, and the ROI may be less because it requires a control plane, worker nodes, and multiple VMs to run."
"The platform could be more convenient to use."
Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews while Kubernetes is ranked 4th in Container Management with 73 reviews. Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0, while Kubernetes is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Google Kubernetes Engine writes "The auto-scaling feature helps during peak hours, but the support is not great". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kubernetes writes "Container orchestrator that deploys our machine learning solutions". Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, Rancher Labs, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform and Amazon Elastic Container Service, whereas Kubernetes is most compared with VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Amazon EKS, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform and HPE Ezmeral Container Platform. See our Google Kubernetes Engine vs. Kubernetes 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.