We performed a comparison between Google Kubernetes Engine and Symantec Data Center Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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 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."
"The initial setup is very easy. We can create our cluster using the command line, or using our console."
"The deployment of the cluster is very easy."
"Stability is perfect for me."
"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."
"The scalability is the best feature."
"The console and tools are very user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature is the endpoint protection system."
"We use the product to prevent unauthorized access to data, systems, and servers. It provides essential features for data center security."
"The ability to finely control permissions and restrictions on servers or assets through a customizable rule set is a key strength."
"Good file integrity monitoring features."
"The most valuable feature is the centralized console, which can handle different products that we have."
"The real strength lies in its straightforward approach, offering just two key policies: prevention and detection."
"The monitoring in the management console allows us to find out what is going wrong, and it gets reports even before the user reports it."
"One of the things I missed a bit is the visibility and availability of solutions. If I compare it to a different solution, it is a bit behind."
"The solution does not have a visual interface."
"The pricing could be more competitive. It should be cheaper."
"There is a limitation for our infrastructure. It's very complex to see in one dashboard all the components and all the behavior on performance. I am looking for some additional tools for that. If I want to check the disk or file storage, it gets complex. There should be an integrated dashboard so that we can manage everything through a single pane."
"The monitoring part requires some serious improvements in Google Kubernetes Engine, as it does not have very good monitoring consoles."
"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 user interface could be improved."
"The notifications are not informative."
"This solution clashes with Microsoft defender, which results in performance degradation on the machine."
"It would be advantageous if Symantec or Broadcom, given the rebranding, could simplify the process, enabling users to leverage the antivirus functionality more easily."
"Could have better reporting capabilities and better support."
"Adding more compatibility with common products like Microsoft would be a plus."
"They need to develop a more flexible product that can be scaled such that it fits well into a small business or a bigger, enterprise-level solution."
"There is room for improvement in enhancing its graphical user interface for a more user-friendly experience."
"The product blocks certain processes, even after allowlisting them."
"There is plenty of room for improvement with this product, and it could start with platform metrics."
More Symantec Data Center Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews while Symantec Data Center Security is ranked 11th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 11 reviews. Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0, while Symantec Data Center Security is rated 7.6. 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 Symantec Data Center Security writes "A robust solution that provides comprehensive protection for data centers, offering agentless security, powerful intrusion prevention, and a wide range of security features". Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, Kubernetes, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Rancher Labs and OpenShift Container Platform, whereas Symantec Data Center Security is most compared with Trend Micro Deep Security, Symantec Endpoint Security, VMware NSX, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. See our Google Kubernetes Engine vs. Symantec Data Center Security report.
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.