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."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."
"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."
"It is simple to use. It is much simpler than AWS. It is also very powerful."
"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 initial setup is okay. It's not too complex. Deployment took about one day."
"The product's setup and deployment phases are easy."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward, considering that there is good documentation explaining the implementation part of it."
"The solution provides a lot of flexibility to the application team for running their applications in the container platform, without needing to monitor the entire infrastructure all the time. It automatically scales and automatically self-heals. There is also a mechanism to alert the team in case it is over-committing or overutilizing the application."
"Provides support throughout the whole platform."
"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."
"Self-provisioning support saves a lot of time and unnecessary work from the system administrator who can use this time to run and monitor the infrastructure. For the developer, this means less time waiting for the provisioning and excellent flexibility for development, testing, and production. Also, in such systems it is easy for developers to monitor applications even after deployment."
"The security features of OpenShift are strong when in use of role-based access."
"Security is also an important part of this solution. By default, things are running with limited privileges and securely confined to their own resources. This way, different users and projects can all use the same infrastructure."
"In terms of implementation, OpenShift is very user-friendly, which is an advantage. We are using it along with GitLab for implementing CI/CD pipelines. That's a feature that other products also have, but in OpenShift, we find it good."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"There needs to be more directions in terms of how to use the solution."
"I would like a simpler deployment tool on laptops. It is a bit complicated at the moment. We know how to do it, but it could be easier to deploy it on laptops."
"The support for the Indian region is not as good as compared to the support that is offered to the regions in Europe."
"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."
"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 product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Some features of runtime don't work well in App Engine."
"Data consumption of the device could be improved."
"The interface could be simplified a bit more."
"There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift."
"Autoscaling is a very unique feature, but it could be useful to have more options based on traffic statistics, for example, via Prometheus. So, there should be more ready solutions to autoscale based on specific applications."
"This is a fairly expensive solution."
"Room for improvement is around the offerings that come as a bundle with the container platform. The packaging of the platform should be done such that customers do not have to purchase additional licenses."
"The tool lacks some features to make it compliant with Kubernetes"
"OpenShift's storage management could be better."
"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.