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."The WhatApp feature is the most valuable."
"Its ability to integrate with most devices helps users who have different or old devices."
"It is simple to use. It is much simpler than AWS. It is also very powerful."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is serverless, so we don't have to operate it."
"Administering App Engine is simple; it has intuitive UIs and a very scalable app engine."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward, considering that there is good documentation explaining the implementation part of it."
"The developers seem to like the source-to-image feature. That makes it easy for them to deploy an application from code into containers, so they don't have to think about things. They take it straight from their code into a containerized application. If you don't have OpenShift, you have to build the container and then deploy the container to, say, EKS or something like that."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the security context constraint (SCC). The solution’s security throughout the stack is good. And security context constraints provide port-level security. It's a granular level of control, where you can give privileges to certain users to work on certain applications."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"I love to automate everything and OpenShift was been born for that. It takes care of the network layer itself and I don't need to dive into it; I can work on a top level. Our project has numerous services designed to run in Docker containers, and we have run almost all pieces in OpenShift."
"It is a stable platform."
"Scaling and uptime of the applications are positives."
"There is a quick deployment of the application, and we can scale out efficiently."
"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."
"Data consumption of the device could be improved."
"The only concern is that there is a number of the offerings which are built on their own proprietary technologies. With some of the offerings in Google Cloud, it's difficult to have a path to migrate to other cloud providers."
"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."
"There needs to be more directions in terms of how to use the solution."
"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."
"The documentation and community are lacking for this product."
"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."
"The product’s integration with Windows containers and other third-party products needs improvement."
"The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations."
"This is a fairly expensive solution."
"OpenShift can improve monitoring. Sometimes there are issues. Additionally, the solution could benefit from protective tools if something was to happen in our network."
"One area for improvement is the documentation. They need to make it a little bit more user-friendly. Also, if you compare certain features and the installation process with Rancher, Rancher is simpler."
"The area for improvement is mostly in support for legacy applications."
"Latency and performance are two areas of concern in OpenShift where improvements are required."
"There have been some issues with security, in particular, that we had to address. At times they make it “clunky." I am quite confident these parameters will appear in the next releases. They have been reported as bugs and are actually in process."
Google App Engine is ranked 11th 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, IBM Cloud Private and Amazon EC2, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Google Cloud. 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.