We performed a comparison between Google App Engine and Red Hat 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 product's setup and deployment phases are easy."
"The solution is serverless, so we don't have to operate it."
"It is simple to use. It is much simpler than AWS. It is also very powerful."
"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 product's initial setup phase was straightforward, considering that there is good documentation explaining the implementation part of it."
"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."
"The initial setup is okay. It's not too complex. Deployment took about one day."
"Administering App Engine is simple; it has intuitive UIs and a very scalable app engine."
"Provides support throughout the whole platform."
"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."
"Scaling and uptime of the applications are positives."
"Its security is most valuable. It's by default secure, which is very important."
"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 robust tools for monitoring application traffic, allowing us to analyze client requests and other business-related metrics."
"This solution is providing a platform with OOTB features that are difficult to build from scratch."
"Great integration with Jenkins for constant integration and development. Supports all the major languages and environments - PHP, Java, Node.js, Ruby, etc."
"Difficult to assess how pricing is managed."
"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."
"There needs to be more directions in terms of how to use the solution."
"Data consumption of the device could be improved."
"The support for the Indian region is not as good as compared to the support that is offered to the regions in Europe."
"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."
"Some features of runtime don't work well in App Engine."
"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."
"The tool lacks some features to make it compliant with Kubernetes"
"We experienced issues around desktop security, that stopped us implementing a new feature that had been developed."
"I want easier node management and more user-friendly scripts for installing master and worker nodes."
"OpenShift could improve by providing the ability to integrate with public cloud platforms. This way we can easily use the services that these platforms offer. For instance, Amazon AWS. However, all the three major hyper-scalers solutions offer excellent DevOps and CI/CD tooling. If there was an easy way to integrate with them it would be beneficial. We need a way to easily integrate with the monitoring and dashboard services that they provide."
"The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations."
"OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"One glaring flaw is how OpenShift handles operators. Sometimes operators are forced to go into a particular namespace. When you do that, OpenShift creates an installation plan for everything in that namespace. These operators may be completely separate from each other and have nothing to do with each other, but now they are tied at the hip. You can't upgrade one without upgrading all of them. That's a huge mistake and highly problematic."
Google App Engine is ranked 12th in PaaS Clouds with 23 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 54 reviews. Google App Engine is rated 8.2, while Red Hat 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 Red Hat 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 and IBM Cloud Private, whereas Red Hat 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. Red Hat 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.