We performed a comparison between Google App Engine and 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."I've found that all of the features are valuable, especially the shared drive and the ability for multiple people to use their documents at the same time."
"Administering App Engine is simple; it has intuitive UIs and a very scalable app engine."
"The initial setup is okay. It's not too complex. Deployment took about one day."
"The product's setup and deployment phases are easy."
"Seurity features - unauthorized individuals are unable to access certain applications."
"The solution is serverless, so we don't have to operate it."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward, considering that there is good documentation explaining the implementation part of it."
"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."
"Key features are WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure and the git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure."
"I am impressed with the product's security features."
"I have seen a return on investment, and it depends upon the types and the nature of some of the most critical applications that have been hosted on the OpenShift infrastructure."
"I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones."
"Self-provisioning support saves a lot of time and unnecessary work from the system administrator who can use this time to run and monitor the infrastructure. For the developer, this means less time waiting for the provisioning and excellent flexibility for development, testing, and production. Also, in such systems it is easy for developers to monitor applications even after deployment."
"We have found the cluster management function to be very good with this product."
"The security is good."
"It's cloud agnostic and the containerization and security features are outstanding."
"I am limited to sending a photo to five people. I want to be able to send a photo to many people, not just five."
"I think there's still a lot that can be done with Google Meet and the video conferencing part of it. It could be more dynamic in terms of what can be done with it."
"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."
"The documentation and community are lacking for this product."
"Data consumption of the device could be improved."
"The support for the Indian region is not as good as compared to the support that is offered to the regions in Europe."
"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift."
"The solution only offers support for one server."
"I want easier node management and more user-friendly scripts for installing master and worker nodes."
"The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications... They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore."
"Credential not hidden, so people on the same group can view it."
"Latency and performance are two areas of concern in OpenShift where improvements are required."
"My team has found some bugs in OpenShift due to continuous integration, and this is an area for improvement in the platform. RedHat should fix the bugs. Another area for improvement in OpenShift is that upgrading clusters can be challenging, resulting in downtime. Application support also needs improvement in OpenShift because the platform doesn't support all applications in the cloud. I'd like upgraded storage in the next release of OpenShift, especially when I need to do a DR exercise. It would also be good if the platform allows mirroring with another cluster, or more portability in terms of moving applications to another cluster."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
Google App Engine is ranked 10th in PaaS Clouds with 23 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Google App Engine is rated 8.2, while 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 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, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) and IBM Public Cloud, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud and Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). See our Google App Engine vs. 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.