We performed a comparison between Google Kubernetes Engine and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes 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."Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) takes care of managing Kubernetes, including the main control plane. It also offers solutions for monitoring resources and handling external traffic, which is essential for us. Being a cloud-native solution, it relieves us from worrying about these operational aspects."
"The solution is available across AWS, GCP and Azure and is seamless."
"It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best."
"Stability-wise, this solution is really good."
"The solution is more user-friendly than AWS or Azure. I can also easily scale out the service in the future when the number of customers grows. GKE is the leader of Kubernetes service and it can be easily updated. I love the tool's user interfaces."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable features are microservices and its acquisition rate, which is very useful for scaling perspective."
"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."
"We used automation for the initial setup. It was okay. So it wasn't too complex."
"The benefit of working with the solution is the fact that it's very straightforward...It is a perfectly stable product since the details are very accurate."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"The technical support is good."
"One of the most valuable features I found was the ability of this solution to map the network and show you the communication between your containers and your different nodes."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"It is easy to install and manage."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"There is room for improvement in this solution. For example, auto-scaling can be complex. We expect it to be easier to set up and manage, even for our customers."
"The product could be cheaper."
"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 product’s visible allocation feature needs improvement."
"The monitoring part requires some serious improvements in Google Kubernetes Engine, as it does not have very good monitoring consoles."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's cost should be improved because it is high."
"An area in which Google Kubernetes Engine could improve is configuration."
"The console for this solution could be improved because it is very limited."
"The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The testing process could be improved."
"They're trying to convert it to the platform as a source. They are moving in the direction of Cloud Foundry so it can be easier for a developer to deploy it."
"The solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The tool's command line and configuration are hard for us to understand and make deployment complex. It should also include zero trust, access control features and database connectivity."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 10th in Container Management with 31 reviews while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 15th in Container Security with 10 reviews. Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4. 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 Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes writes "Provides network mapping feature for visualizing container communication but complex setup ". Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Kubernetes, Linode, OpenShift Container Platform, VMware Tanzu Mission Control and Rancher Labs, whereas Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, SUSE NeuVector, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Sysdig Secure.
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.