We performed a comparison between Google Kubernetes Engine and VMware Tanzu Mission Control 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 simplified deployment, making it more automated. Previously, Docker required manual configuration, often done by developers on their computers. However, with Google Kubernetes Engine, automation extends to configuration, deployment, scalability, and viability, primarily originating from Docker rather than Kubernetes. Its most valuable feature is the ease of configuration."
"On the tip of a command, you can scale in or scale out, and it offers every robust platform to implement DevOps processes for your automation solutions. The product fully supports the IaC concept."
"Before using this solution, it was a lot of manual tasks and a lot of people participated in the process."
"The logs are important for detecting problems in our clusters."
"Google Kubernetes Engine is used for orchestrating Docker containers. We have 30 or 40 customers working with this solution now. We'll probably see 10 to 15 percent growth in the number of customers using Google Kubernetes Engine in the future."
"Stability-wise, this solution is really good."
"Stability is perfect for me."
"The feature that I like the most is the ease of use as compared to AWS. Its ease of use is very high, and I can quickly deploy clusters with a simple template."
"The most popular feature of VMware Tanzu Mission Control is its graphical user interface for describing network policies on the Service Mesh, which is highly integrable with other tools commonly used in supply chains such as security."
"It definitely gives the end customer a good overview and perspective of running applications in terms of overall workload footprint. TMC provides a very detailed description of your cloud-native application in the form of graphical visualization."
"Tanzu Mission Control has quite a set of rich features when compared to OpenShift."
"I have multiple Kubernetes environments within my environment. TMC gives me a single pane view, which is good for managing everything."
"Defining security metrics has proven beneficial for customers in maintaining a safe environment."
"The most important thing about the solution is its flexibility."
"The multi-tenancy with the VCD is great."
"The initial setup is easy."
"An area in which Google Kubernetes Engine could improve is configuration."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's cost should be improved because it is high."
"The monitoring part requires some serious improvements in Google Kubernetes Engine, as it does not have very good monitoring consoles."
"The console for this solution could be improved because it is very limited."
"I would like the solution to integrate with another Kubernetes product. I would also like it to monitor other platforms. It needs to also include scale-up container in the tool's next release."
"The pricing could be more competitive. It should be cheaper."
"We would like to see some improvement in the ease of integration with this solution."
"The notifications are not informative."
"This product doesn't have a GUI. In order to use it properly, I need to connect it to a new GUI or build a GUI to manage it — it's pretty difficult."
"Cost is always a concern. Smaller companies might find the price a bigger issue."
"LYNX is a managed cluster solution that takes care of specific details within a cluster, such as sequences or services. I haven't seen this feature in Tanzu Mission Control."
"Having a unified dashboard to manage all infrastructure, whether it involves additional IT infrastructure or modern apps, would be highly advantageous"
"We want to see a new feature that helps build more security architecture like Zero Trust Security or shifting left in Kubernetes."
"Another area of improvement is pricing."
"The infrastructure is quite challenging."
"Tanzu provides better manageability as compared to OCP, but when it comes to tagging it with other products, it's a bit rigid. If I have to bring in any new product or something out of the box from a different vendor, working with Tanzu becomes a little difficult. For example, if I want to use the F5 services, I have to add one more layer of Avi, but I don't want to do that. If I have a list of the products that I want to use, such as for firewall services, with Tanzu, I will have to go through another layer, which creates complexity."
Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews while VMware Tanzu Mission Control is ranked 3rd in Container Management with 12 reviews. Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0, while VMware Tanzu Mission Control is rated 7.8. 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 VMware Tanzu Mission Control writes "Gives a single pane to manage multiple Kubernetes environments and has competitive pricing". Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, Kubernetes, Rancher Labs, Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform and Amazon Elastic Container Service, whereas VMware Tanzu Mission Control is most compared with Rancher Labs, Kubernetes, Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE and Amazon Elastic Container Service. See our Google Kubernetes Engine vs. VMware Tanzu Mission Control report.
See our list of best Container Management vendors.
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.