Google Kubernetes Engine vs HPE Ezmeral Container Platform comparison

"It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best."

"Stability-wise, this solution is really good."

"The product has no downtime."

"GKE's plugin management and configuration sync are excellent features. The amount of data it provides is good, and I've been able to integrate it with the things I need."

"Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) takes care of managing Kubernetes, including the main control plane. It also offers solutions for monitoring resources and handling external traffic, which is essential for us. Being a cloud-native solution, it relieves us from worrying about these operational aspects."

"The product’s dashboard is very intuitive."

"We appreciate that it is quite easy to set up a Kubernetes cluster in Google Cloud, using the managed services within this solution."

"The initial setup process is simpler and more user-friendly than other cloud providers."

"The stability of the HPE Ezmeral Container Platform is good, and I rate it an eight out of ten."

"If customers focus on primary apps or if they are using them for data science, this is a good solution."

"The user interface is a bit confusing sometimes. You need to navigate between the various consoles we have. It's hard to figure out where things are. It's frustrating. The documentation could be a bit better."

"The primary area for improvement would be the complexity involved when working with Google Kubernetes Engine, especially when using Terraform."

"The management UI could be improved."

"I would like to see the ability to create multiple notebook configurations."

"I have created a couple of issues with Google tech support, and I am not satisfied with the assistance I received."

"t is not very stable."

"The management UI could be improved. When looking at the web interface, it feels kind of slow due to the many features involved."

"The pricing could be more competitive. It should be cheaper."

"The modernization in Ezmeral could be improved."

"HPE Ezmeral Container Platform is not user-friendly and has many parts that are more difficult than Cloudera. It is also a complex solution and has low features for data management."

"Its pricing is good. They bill us only per user. That's nice."

"The solution's price is reasonable."

"I rate the product's price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price. The product is competitively priced."

"The price for Google Kubernetes Engine could be lower - I'd rate its pricing at three out of five."

"We are planning to use external support, and hire a commercial partner for it."

"The pricing for GKE is dependent on the type of machine or virtual machine (VM) that is selected for the nodes in the cluster. There is a degree of flexibility in choosing the specifications of the machine, such as the number of CPUs, GPUs, and so on. Google provides a variety of options, allowing the user to create the desired cluster composition. However, the cost can be quite steep when it comes to regional clusters, which are necessary for high availability and failover. This redundancy is crucial for businesses and is required to handle an increase in requests in case of any issues in one region, such as jumping to a different region in case of a failure in the Toronto region. While it may be tempting to choose the cheapest type of machines, this may result in a limited capacity and user numbers, requiring over-provisioning to handle additional requests, such as those for a web application."

"It is competitive, and it is not expensive. It is almost competitive with AWS and the rest of the cloud solutions. We are spending around 3K USD per month. There are four projects that are currently running, and each one is incurring a cost of around 3K USD."

"The product is a little bit expensive."