We performed a comparison between Cisco Container Platform and Google Kubernetes 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."The most valuable feature is definitely the fact that you can use a single platform to deploy to different resource providers. Right now, the version I'm using has vSphere and AWS, but I know in the future they're planning on adding more. The ability to deploy clusters on-prem or to any number of public cloud providers is really valuable because you don't need to relearn or switch platforms to switch resource providers."
"Stability-wise, this solution is really good."
"It is easy to use and deploy."
"Stability is perfect for me."
"The solution is available across AWS, GCP and Azure and is seamless."
"The product has valuable security features. It can connect with multiple DevOps tools."
"The most valuable feature of Google Kubernetes Engine is how you can automatically scale and load balance."
"It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable feature is container deployment."
"One thing that is a little bit annoying about Cisco Container Platform is that for each cluster you create you have to go through the same web form each time. If you're creating two identical clusters, you still have to go through that web form twice."
"There are some security issues, but it might just be because we are not up to speed yet as much as we should be and so we haven't found it in the documentation yet. That's why I don't want to confuse this. Still, it could be a little bit easier to understand and implement."
"I think that security is an important point, and there should be additional features for the evaluation of data in containers that will create a more secure environment for usage in multi-parent models."
"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 notifications are not informative."
"I use the Firebase tool with GKE and it would be helpful if the solution can give notifications when we reach the budget limit."
"There is room for improvement in the cluster updates process. Specifically, when managing both non-production and production clusters, we need a sequential functionality."
"Google Kubernetes Engine is less stable in some highly complex deployments with many nodes."
"The product’s visible allocation feature needs improvement."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Container Platform is ranked 20th in Container Management while Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews. Cisco Container Platform is rated 8.0, while Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Container Platform writes "Enables the deployment/management of Kubernetes clusters from multiple resource providers at one location". 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". Cisco Container Platform is most compared with Kubernetes, OpenShift Container Platform and VMware Tanzu Mission Control, whereas Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, Kubernetes, Rancher Labs, VMware Tanzu Mission Control and OpenShift Container Platform.
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.
