We performed a comparison between Cloud Foundry and Google Compute Engine based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Oracle and others in PaaS Clouds."Cloud Foundry builds the runtime environment directly without requiring dependency management from the user."
"My favorite component of IBM's solution is Node-RED, which greatly shortens the amount of time required to develop, test, and deploy new applications."
"IBM is the only vendor to offer integration with blockchain for smart contract development."
"Google is managing all hardware. You don't need to provision or pre-provision your computer engine."
"Everything is simple and useful. The initial setup is not challenging."
"It's the most engineer-friendly product compared to Amazon AWS or Azure."
"The solution is readily available, and software engineers can provision it. It is scalable and allows self-service."
"One of GCE's best features is the managed instance groups."
"The solution helps to direct SSH into the machine at the click of a button. It also helps to deploy container images right from the UI. There is no need to manage the containers on the machine. I also like the tool’s Spot provision model."
"The main motive for choosing Google Compute Engine is pricing."
"From a feature perspective, I find API integration, automation capabilities, and features like preemptive and Spot instances valuable. Migration tools have also been useful."
"In IBM Cloud, the product has been deprecated in favor of Kubernetes, which is a more complicated infrastructure to manage."
"After the initial excitement period with Node-RED is over, you crave the need of additional integrations to third-party services."
"The licensing process is not a very straightforward process."
"It would be better if there was an option to change the background. Like in Gmail, there's an option to change your theme."
"Google Compute Engine needs to have multi-region support. It would also be nice to have a tracking mechanism."
"It has some limitations. For example, you don't get through layer two connectivity. So I've had some difficulty deploying custom VMs. For example, you can't deploy a KVM file to file directly on GCP."
"It is not very user-friendly for non-experienced users"
"I would like to improve the solution’s UI while deploying a container. It is sometimes hard to figure out the container’s details and format that you want to deploy. The tool does not give you a guide to find out the error and why the container is not starting up which could be because you have configured it wrong. This is always a hit on the setup."
"I rate the product's stability around five to six out of ten."
"There have been instances when a customer has tried to deploy a certain number of VMs inside a project, and they come across quota issues."
Cloud Foundry is ranked 21st in PaaS Clouds with 2 reviews while Google Compute Engine is ranked 11th in Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) with 13 reviews. Cloud Foundry is rated 5.0, while Google Compute Engine is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Cloud Foundry writes "Quick to deploy but being deprecated by IBM and should be merged with Kubernetes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Google Compute Engine writes "A cost-effective and quite an elastic solution ". Cloud Foundry is most compared with Pivotal Cloud Foundry, VMware Tanzu Application Service, Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS and OpenShift, whereas Google Compute Engine is most compared with Google App Engine, Microsoft Azure, IBM Public Cloud, SAP Cloud Platform and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI).
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.
