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."The solution is serverless, so we don't have to operate it."
"The initial setup is okay. It's not too complex. Deployment took about one day."
"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 product's setup and deployment phases are easy."
"The WhatApp feature is the most valuable."
"Its ability to integrate with most devices helps users who have different or old devices."
"Seurity features - unauthorized individuals are unable to access certain applications."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward, considering that there is good documentation explaining the implementation part of it."
"The security is good."
"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 most valuable feature is the auto scalers for all microservices. The feature allows us to place request limits and it is much cheaper than AWS."
"The stability has been good."
"Its security is most valuable. It's by default secure, which is very important."
"I have seen a return on investment, and it depends upon the types and the nature of some of the most critical applications that have been hosted on the OpenShift infrastructure."
"I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones."
"OpenShift is based on Kubernetes and we try to use all the Kubernetes objects of OpenShift. We don't use features that are specific to OpenShift, except internal certificates for the services. The one feature that is missing from Kubernetes and that is really useful in OpenShift is the lifecycle of the cluster and the ease of installation. We use VMware and VMware integration internally with the OpenShift installer, which is very good. With OpenShift it's easy to spin up or scale out a cluster."
"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."
"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."
"The documentation and community are lacking for this product."
"Difficult to assess how pricing is managed."
"There needs to be more directions in terms of how to use the solution."
"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 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."
"The solution only offers support for one server."
"I think that OpenShift has too many commands for running services from the CLI, and the configuration files are a little complicated."
"Documentation and technical support could be improved. The product is good, but when we raise a case with support—say we are having an image issue—the support is not really up to the mark. It is difficult to get support... When we raise a case, their support people will hesitate to get on a call or a screen-sharing session. That is a major drawback when it comes to OpenShift."
"An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"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."
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.