We performed a comparison between Google Compute Engine and Microsoft Azure based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"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."
"Everything is simple and useful. The initial setup is not challenging."
"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."
"One of GCE's best features is the managed instance groups."
"The initial setup is reasonably straightforward. It's a handful of networks and a handful of computers."
"The solution is readily available, and software engineers can provision it. It is scalable and allows self-service."
"Google is managing all hardware. You don't need to provision or pre-provision your computer engine."
"The best feature is it's easy to integrate with other Microsoft solutions."
"We've found the solution to be extremely flexible."
"Its ability to scale is most valuable. There are certain periods of the year when we are busier, and we're able to scale up and scale down with Azure depending upon our needs."
"The tool's most valuable aspect is the account management side. This involves tasks such as assigning credentials to different individuals, managing user accounts, and implementing Privileged Access Management."
"Active Directory is a good feature. The infrastructure features that Azure provides are also good."
"The support is responsive and dedicated to SMEs."
"The portal makes it easier to work with the solution."
"Some features of Azure are very important for us. You can control access for your company, it's not complicated managing the solution either. I think the solution is very stable, secure and the documentation Microsoft has on their website is complete. You can use it to find the solution's problems or implement solutions."
"Google Compute Engine needs to have multi-region support. It would also be nice to have a tracking mechanism."
"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."
"Google Compute Engine does not have many options at a lower tier level. If they had more options it will be better. For example, Amazon AWS or Microsoft Azure, have more options and different types of instances, of VMs we can select."
"The licensing process is not a very straightforward process."
"It is not very user-friendly for non-experienced users"
"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."
"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."
"Predictability and quality. Make sure things work predictable, as expected, and documented."
"Azure does not handle scalability as well as its competitors. Sometimes a 10 percent increase in a server with 20 percent of CPU usage pushes the server up to 100 percent load, and you start having performance issues."
"You eventually end up with a large collection of 'bits' all working together, I find it hard to be able to create a logical 'box' and put all the 'bits' that need to be in that box / application into the one place."
"I would like to see all of the cloud providers be more compatible with each other."
"The tool should add an interface that is similar to AWS."
"The solution could use mutual segmentation for servers. It would be ideal if you could constitute something like five or 15 groups among the groups of different computers inside Azure."
"It should have cost optimization tools. Customers are required to use third-party applications to avoid usage complications."
"The solution could improve by having more security features around my data and the platform."
Google Compute Engine is ranked 11th in Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) with 13 reviews while Microsoft Azure is ranked 1st in Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) with 299 reviews. Google Compute Engine is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Azure is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Google Compute Engine writes "A cost-effective and quite an elastic solution ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure writes "Promotes clear, logical structures preventing impractical configurations and offers seamless integration ". Google Compute Engine is most compared with Google App Engine, IBM Public Cloud, SAP Cloud Platform, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) and Amazon AWS, whereas Microsoft Azure is most compared with Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Google Firebase, Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry and SAP Cloud Platform. See our Google Compute Engine vs. Microsoft Azure report.
See our list of best Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) vendors.
We monitor all Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) 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.
