We performed a comparison between Amazon Elastic Container Service and Google Container Engine based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Amazon Web Services (AWS), VMware and others in Container Management."The product's initial setup was very straightforward and not complex."
"I like the per-second billing."
"I like the tool's availability and automated scalability. I need to define the port numbers, and when I have a large load of requests, I can get automated scalability."
"The solution is simple to access."
"The product's most valuable feature is service discovery functionality. It is an excellent feature impacting cost reduction."
"The production environment is highly available, which nowadays is a requirement for all of the big companies."
"Amazon EC2 Container Service has multiple valuable features like load balancers and autoscalers."
"We use the product for website and email database hosting."
"The tool is very powerful, scalable, and easy to manage. Its autoscaling features helped us save costs."
"For Amazon EC2 Container Service, providing the ability for users to select specific processor, memory, disk, and interface types might be an ideal feature. But, the practicality of offering all possible physical combinations is nearly impossible due to the underlying physical machines. AWS and Azure organize options into groups based on essential components like powerful processors or critical interfaces, considering physical restrictions. While expanding these choices is conceivable, it may not be feasible from a financial and practical perspective. Customers generally comprehend this limitation, as even in their own data centers, exact physical machine requirements are often a result of a combination of factors such as price, availability, and new machine generations."
"Amazon EC2 Container Service's security can be improved."
"The product should improve its price."
"Amazon Elastic Container Service’s initial setup is a bit difficult."
"We noticed a problem where our container doesn't always run, and the traffic in our secured license exceeds 100%, leading to increased container costs. We are working to understand and reduce this traffic to control costs."
"I also believe there are limitations in terms of upgrading. The software has the concept of dedicated servers that you can manage. However, an issue arises when you can't match one operating system with another that you've already purchased. You can't simply merge them; instead, you have to buy a completely new one. This limitation has caused some challenges for us."
"In the next release, they could add some customization options for high computer workloads."
"The solution’s UI should be improved."
"Google Container Engine needs to be able to manage network products."
More Amazon Elastic Container Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon Elastic Container Service is ranked 8th in Container Management with 46 reviews while Google Container Engine is ranked 14th in Container Management with 1 review. Amazon Elastic Container Service is rated 8.4, while Google Container Engine is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Amazon Elastic Container Service writes "An easy to compute solution that can be used to take complete workloads to the cloud". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Google Container Engine writes "Has autoscaling features that helps to save costs ". Amazon Elastic Container Service is most compared with OpenShift Container Platform, Microsoft Azure Container Service, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Linode and Google Kubernetes Engine, whereas Google Container Engine is most compared with .
See our list of best Container Management vendors and best Containers as a Service (CaaS) 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.