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 is more user-friendly than AWS or Azure. I can also easily scale out the service in the future when the number of customers grows. GKE is the leader of Kubernetes service and it can be easily updated. I love the tool's user interfaces."
"The logs are important for detecting problems in our clusters."
"Stability is perfect for me."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable features are microservices and its acquisition rate, which is very useful for scaling perspective."
"The scalability is the best feature."
"The initial setup is very easy. We can create our cluster using the command line, or using our console."
"Stability-wise, this solution is really good."
"It is easy to use and deploy."
"VMware Tanzu Mission Control has many valuable features, such as ease of use and customization."
"Defining security metrics has proven beneficial for customers in maintaining a safe environment."
"The initial setup is easy."
"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."
"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."
"The multi-tenancy with the VCD is great."
"A feature we find valuable is that other products can also be integrated with Mission Control. This means that we can see the status of specific clusters, as well as view the monitoring application logs all from one point."
"Tanzu Mission Control has quite a set of rich features when compared to OpenShift."
"We would like to see some improvement in the ease of integration with this solution."
"I would like to see the ability to create multiple notebook configurations."
"The solution does not have a visual interface."
"The product could be cheaper."
"There is a limitation for our infrastructure. It's very complex to see in one dashboard all the components and all the behavior on performance. I am looking for some additional tools for that. If I want to check the disk or file storage, it gets complex. There should be an integrated dashboard so that we can manage everything through a single pane."
"While the GKE cluster is secure, application-level security is an essential aspect that needs to be addressed. The security provided by GKE includes the security of communication between nodes within the cluster and the basic features of Kubernetes security. However, these features may not be sufficient for the security needs of an enterprise. Additional security measures must be added to ensure adequate protection. It has become a common practice to deploy security tools within a Kubernetes cluster. It would be ideal if these tools were included as part of the package, as this is a standard requirement in the industry. Thus, application-level security should be integrated into GKE for improved security measures."
"I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten."
"One of the things I missed a bit is the visibility and availability of solutions. If I compare it to a different solution, it is a bit behind."
"Another area of improvement is pricing."
"The network control and security policies must be improved."
"Having a unified dashboard to manage all infrastructure, whether it involves additional IT infrastructure or modern apps, would be highly advantageous"
"Cost is always a concern. Smaller companies might find the price a bigger issue."
"The solution could improve by having better integration with other solutions such as HPE."
"It is not easy to build a solution with containers. It has a graphical user interface, but you need to have a lot of knowledge of Linux and how to work in the command mode. Its support can also be improved. Currently, its biggest disadvantage is that it is a new product, and the clients prefer to go for a solution that has been in the market for a long time. There are not that many people who know this product."
"The infrastructure is quite challenging."
"We want to see a new feature that helps build more security architecture like Zero Trust Security or shifting left in Kubernetes."
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, OpenShift Container Platform and Amazon Elastic Container Service, whereas VMware Tanzu Mission Control is most compared with Rancher Labs, Kubernetes, 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.
