Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Google Kubernetes Engine vs HPE Ezmeral Container Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Google Kubernetes Engine
Ranking in Container Management
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
40
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
HPE Ezmeral Container Platform
Ranking in Container Management
16th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Container Management category, the mindshare of Google Kubernetes Engine is 2.3%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of HPE Ezmeral Container Platform is 1.4%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Google Kubernetes Engine2.3%
HPE Ezmeral Container Platform1.4%
Other96.3%
Container Management
 

Featured Reviews

Parthasarathy T - PeerSpot reviewer
Cloud Associate DevOps at Publicis Sapient
Managed solutions enable efficient handling of web applications and migration projects
Google Kubernetes Engine can be improved by enabling the in-place upgrade of the machine type of an existing node pool since I currently need to destroy and recreate it. There is no feature present where I can upgrade directly, and having more than 1,000 to 2,000 workloads in one node pool makes changing the node pool name difficult for all those workloads. I choose eight out of ten mainly because of the node pool upgrade challenge I mentioned, but also because of the existence of Anthos service mesh, which is the ingress controller available only for the enterprise Kubernetes Engine. It would be beneficial if it could be offered in the normal Kubernetes Engine with any limitations.
CC
Pre-Sale at Yip Intsoi
Effective cost management achieved with robust storage features but user experience and data management require improvements
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. For example, it cannot make a data catalog or process data lineage without third-party support, which increases the cost for development.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We hardly have a breakdown. It's been very stable."
"We used automation for the initial setup. It was okay. So it wasn't too complex."
"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 initial setup is very easy. We can create our cluster using the command line, or using our console."
"I am satisfied with the stability offered by the solution."
"Regarding deployment in the cloud platform, it is simple because there are pre-configured configurations."
"The deployment of the cluster is very easy."
"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 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."
 

Cons

"An area in which Google Kubernetes Engine could improve is configuration."
"The user interface could be improved."
"We would like to see some improvement in the ease of integration with this solution."
"It needs to support load balancing."
"The monitoring part requires some serious improvements in Google Kubernetes Engine, as it does not have very good monitoring consoles."
"The management UI could be improved."
"I have created a couple of issues with Google tech support, and I am not satisfied with the assistance I received."
"The console for this solution could be improved because it is very limited."
"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."
"The modernization in Ezmeral could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Currently, it costs around $1000 per month which sorted our deployment. So once we get more clients, having a huge suffix, costs can go up."
"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."
"Initially, Google Kubernetes Engine was a little bit cheaper, but now its prices have been increased compared to the pricing model and the features that are made available by its competitors."
"This is an open source solution, so there is no pricing or licensing."
"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."
"I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten. The tool costs around 3000 dollars per month. There are no additional costs apart from these."
"I would rate Kubernetes' pricing four out of five."
"Its pricing is good. They bill us only per user. That's nice."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Management solutions are best for your needs.
880,511 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
26%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
Retailer
7%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Real Estate/Law Firm
11%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business21
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise15
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Google Kubernetes Engine?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Google Kubernetes Engine is straightforward, as I previously indicated. The need for humans is reduced with GCP since there is no need for ...
What needs improvement with Google Kubernetes Engine?
The price could be a bit cheaper. I don't see anything with Google Kubernetes Engine that needs to be improved. I think they are already implementing Kubernetes itself, so they are the owners. Howe...
What needs improvement with HPE Ezmeral Container Platform?
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. For example, it...
What is your primary use case for HPE Ezmeral Container Platform?
We want to replace the existing Cloudera data lake with HPE Ezmeral Container Platform ( /products/hpe-ezmeral-container-platform-reviews ).
What advice do you have for others considering HPE Ezmeral Container Platform?
I rate the HPE Ezmeral Container Platform seven out of ten because it has strong features for storage but lacks certain data management functionalities, requiring additional investments for third-p...
 

Also Known As

GKE
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Philips Lighting, Alpha Vertex, GroupBy, BQ
data iku, StreamSets, unravel
Find out what your peers are saying about Google Kubernetes Engine vs. HPE Ezmeral Container Platform and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
880,511 professionals have used our research since 2012.