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."
"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."
"The support for ephemeral instances has been particularly valuable for me. It allows me to significantly reduce costs for temporary virtual machines by automatically destroying them once they are no longer needed, which can result in cost savings of up to 90 percent. Additionally, the solution is easy to use."
"The initial setup is reasonably straightforward. It's a handful of networks and a handful of computers."
"It's the most engineer-friendly product compared to Amazon AWS or Azure."
"The most valuable feature is auto-scaling."
"Google is managing all hardware. You don't need to provision or pre-provision your computer engine."
"Microsoft Azure has a lot of useful features. They have databases, application services, PaaS solutions, such as platform and infrastructure services. The virtual machines' functions and services are good."
"The product is a cloud solution."
"We didn't have any problems setting it up."
"The monitoring features are very good."
"We like that you sign in only once and that grants access to all of the Microsft applications, as well as others such as ServiceNow and SAP Concur."
"This is a very stable product."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure is its ease of use."
"The solution is very flexible, it is not limited to Microsoft solutions. It integrates well with other solutions, such as Oracle. There are a lot of templates we are able to use allowing us to reduce the time for configuration."
"Google Compute Engine needs to have multi-region support. It would also be nice to have a tracking mechanism."
"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."
"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."
"It would be better if there was an option to change the background. Like in Gmail, there's an option to change your theme."
"It is not very user-friendly for non-experienced users"
"The licensing process is not a very straightforward process."
"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."
"At this point, the latency is too high to use Azure in our production environment."
"One key area for improvement is the Azure load balancer. Currently, it only supports virtual machines (VMs) running in the same virtual network (vNet) on the backend. They should definitely support machines or IPs running on-premises (prem) or in other Azure VNets. GCP and AWS already support that. So, Azure Load Balancer should support that as well"
"Ease of use could be improved."
"There are times when using a service in Microsoft Azure can be confusing because you have four or five options that do similar operations. It would be helpful if there was a clear decision tree around those features. Microsoft does provide a lot of decision trees around a lot of their services, but it's not for everything."
"I would like to see better policy-based management and everything related to security management could have been better integrated."
"The solution should improve the shared cache. For the shared cache, Microsoft uses RADIUS third-party services. We have a lot of trouble with RADIUS and I suppose that is due to the fact that is not owned completely by Microsoft."
"The market place can be raised, and the CMT can be more sophisticated to create more opportunities for the end users."
"I would like to see more advanced functionality in terms of information security."
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, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), IBM Public Cloud and Amazon AWS, whereas Microsoft Azure is most compared with Google Firebase, Amazon AWS, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Pivotal Cloud Foundry and Alibaba Cloud. 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.