Amazon Elastic Container Service vs Microsoft Azure Container Service comparison

"Amazon ECS allows users to deploy and manage container applications like microservices or web applications on Amazon clusters. It's easy to install and designed for AWS targets, serving as a serverless container platform. It offers features such as automatic scanning, load balancing, and service discovery to help users manage their container applications."

"They handle the backup process quite well. They automatically encapsulate it, including container backups, without relying heavily on the client's involvement. This is a significant advantage compared to other providers where clients often need to manage the process more independently. It's a feature that I find suitable and beneficial."

"In seven years, we have not faced a single second of downtime."

"The tool helps us with maneuverability. Its most valuable feature is autoscaling."

"The solution is quite scalable and allows you to launch multiple EC2s within minutes."

"Amazon EC2 Container Service is a stable solution."

"The support from AWS is incredible."

"What I really like about Amazon ECS is its simplicity and ease of use. Amazon also has really good security."

"Visualization is the most important feature."

"The most valuable feature is that you don't have to maintain the infrastructure."

"The most valuable features are that it is simple, and the compression of the data."

"Microsoft Azure Container Service has a good level of stability."

"Storage is one of the most beneficial features of cloud providers, specifically Azure because when you are working in their cloud environment, you can easily use a storage interface and a storage object that is provided by Microsoft Azure. In a local environment, you have to be involved in establishing and setting up distributed storage file systems for containers which are very difficult and complex. In a cloud environment, you are not concerned about the storage and the dashboard provides you with storage objects with high availability."

"It's a great product if you are in a Microsoft environment."

"The product makes things easier since it's self-managed. Therefore, there is less administration workload and operational costs."

"The solution’s UI should be improved."

"The solution needs to be more usable."

"It's a complex tool and should be simplified."

"The solution is expensive compared to other alternatives like Azure."

"The solution must improve backup and compatibility around OS like Windows and Mac."

"EC2 is not self-explanatory enough."

"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."

"Standard support could be more helpful and responsive."

"Since the product is fully managed, it is expensive."

"I wasn't very impressed with the documentation."

"In the future, I would like to see it generalized and have the ability to better integrate with open-source tools."

"f Microsoft Azure can provide GUI dashboards for end-users and administrators to work separately to manage all the Kubernetes clusters without a need to connect to Azure environments and through CLI it would be better."

"In terms of the container strategy, they need to make it more compliant with the Linux OS."

"The customization is an area that needs improvement."

"The solution's cost could be reduced."

"Amazon EC2 Container Service is an expensive solution."

"Amazon EC2 Container Service is cheap."

"Amazon ECS is expensive."

"I don't exactly deal with the pricing. We have a separate Infra team that deals with the pricing. They are more into the scalability part. Based on our requirements, the pricing will increase. The automation teams will test some of the benefits to see how can we can optimize the cost. They'll have a security manager connection and some alerts based upon the usage to see how to reduce the building cost based upon the installations."

"The pricing is good."

"I rate the product's pricing an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive."

"Licensing can be purchased directly from AWS or used with existing licenses, depending on the company's preference. The licensing structure is complex and depends on factors such as machine size, number of processors, and Container size. Companies have dedicated staff members managing license considerations full-time to find the most cost-effective options. Also, I have seen some companies opt for a combination of AWS and Azure, using more of Azure for Microsoft licenses due to potentially lower costs compared to AWS."

"The solution's pricing is reasonable."

"The costs depend on the resources that you use, and there is a cost-management system to help calculate it."

"Microsoft Azure Container Service has costs but in the container environment, there are no costs because it is open source and we are using Docker as the container engine in the master and worker nodes established in the Azure environment."