Google Firebase Reviews

I'm using Google Firebase for Backend as a Service, while in the front end, I'm using AppGyver. The major use case for Google Firebase is that it's a backend server for mobile applications.

The most beautiful feature of Google Firebase is that it gives you a lot of functionalities out of the box, without you having to develop or having to complete a solution. For example, identity management is integrated, and security is out of the box, particularly security for the user and the ability of each user to see his data.

I also like that Google Firebase has a really good performance and is comparable to MongoDB. It's on the same level, and sometimes, it's on an even higher level than MongoDB.

Other functions that Google Firebase has that I find valuable include information dissemination, mail automation, and SMS, available out of the box.

Another valuable feature of the solution is that it allows you to develop some functionalities on the server side, so you can write JavaScript functions on the server side and use those functions quite easily. Google Firebase gives you almost a full backend environment out of the box without you having to do any deployments or a lot of administration because all administration is given out of the box.

There's always room for improvement in every product, and the major improvement that's needed in Google Firebase is its simplification, particularly for unsavvy users or non-technical users. If you're not tech-savvy, it would be very difficult for you to use the functions of the solution and understand its security rules.

If you want even non-technical people to find it easy to use Google Firebase, it should be simplified because the difference between screen-derived management and code-derived management isn't complex, so simplification wouldn't be an issue.

Another area for improvement in the solution is the functionality of querying a database, for example, the database in my company is DocumentDB, but Google Firebase doesn't support SQL queries, and using SQL language will dramatically increase usage. Each database has its language for querying, and I like SQL which is a standard query language. It's really difficult to query databases because, on each database, you have to learn a different language, so in DocumentDB and some other databases, there's a layer that gives you the ability to query with regular SQL language, but Google Firebase doesn't have that layer or functionality.

An additional feature I'd like to see in the next version of the solution is better querying. Another feature I'd like added to Google Firebase is for the security to be derived by screens, rather than by code, meaning that it can be automated by screens, and not by coding, then you can take it out of the development area, so it can be maintained by non-tech savvy users.

I've been using Google Firebase for almost one year now.

Google Firebase is stable and is significantly more stable than other solutions, for example, MongoDB. Per my usage of the solution at a start-up level, I haven't experienced any problems with it in terms of stability, but I've read that some customers complain about it.

Google Firebase is a scalable solution.

I never needed to contact Google Firebase technical support because I could manage any issue myself as the documentation for the solution was self-explanatory.

I reviewed and compared Google Firebase against different Backend as a Service, or backend solutions for mobile devices, such as Backendless and Xano. There's also MongoDB which is a huge database, but it's on a different level and focuses. Eventually, I chose to go with Google Firebase because of its functionality and cost. The solution was cheaper than the others, so it was better in terms of cost and functionality.

Google Firebase is SaaS and cloud-based, so it's really easy and straightforward to set up, even if you don't have that much knowledge about it.

Pricing for Google Firebase is not so expensive, and if you're a start-up with a small amount of data, it will be quite cheap, and there's even a free tier that you can use. If you're doing a pilot with a reasonable amount of data, for example, just a few gigabytes, it's still on the free tier. If you increase the amount of data, Google Firebase pricing is still reasonable.

The solution has two levels of pricing: the no-cost and the pay-as-you-go. The no-cost pricing level means that if you do AB testing, analytics, app distribution, app indexing, authentication, and storage on the free tier, you can do ten thousand authentications a month for free. For ten thousand email authentications or mobile authentications, it's also free. For fifty thousand identification management and identity checks, it's free. One gigabyte of storage is free, and ten gigabytes for networking is also free. Twenty thousand documents a day is free.

For pay-as-you-go, it's one cent per authentication if you are in the United States. If you are outside of the United States, it will cost you six cents per authentication. For storage after one gigabyte, it'll be ten cents per additional gigabyte, for example, two gigabytes amount to ten cents, three gigabytes would cost twenty cents, and so on.

I evaluated AppGyver, and I'm using it together with Google Firebase. I also evaluated Backendless, Xano, and MongoDB.

I'm using the cloud version of Google Firebase, so it's just one version and it's always the latest version.

Three developers, myself included, use Google Firebase. As the solution is SaaS, most of the heavy maintenance is handled by Google, but it's my team who handles the application administration and maintenance.

My advice for users of DocumentDB and Google Firebase is to first make sure that DocumentDB is the right solution because, at the start, DocumentDB would be good enough, but as you're growing your applications, you'll realize that DocumentDB isn't the only solution, or isn't the right solution for you. This means that the cost of ownership becomes much, much bigger, so my first advice is to focus on the type of database and figure out what's the best database for you, whether it's a relational database or another type. As soon as you get your answer, you'll find that Google Firebase has a very wide range of solutions it can support.

My rating for Google Firebase is nine out of ten because it's a good solution and it's maintained by Google, and Google has invested enough in it.

I'm a Google Firebase user.

We already use this technology in our company to build our Android and iOS mobile applications and to communicate with our back-end infrastructure.

Google Cloud Functions: Allows us to create functions without any infrastructure apart from the Google App Engine. These functions can have several kinds of triggers:

• Realtime Database Triggers
• Firebase Authentication Triggers
• Firebase Analytics Triggers
• Cloud Storage Triggers
• Cloud Pub/Sub Triggers
• HTTP Triggers

Google Cloud Auth: Allows our Android and iOS mobile applications and JavaScript codes to make authentication with almost no effort. The reason is because the Auth has already implemented it for us.

Google Cloud Real-time Database: Allows our Android and iOS mobile applications and JavaScript codes to record and retrieve data with persistence and minimum effort.

In my humble opinion, Google Cloud Functions (which is still a BETA version) needs to have more control over the uploaded functions. That is, it needs more options for controlling the functions itself. I might think about some characteristics that can improve a lot this:

- A START button to start the function. This button should be
incorporated in each one of the functions that the developer created and
deployed in Google Cloud Functions;
- A STOP button to stop the function. This button should be incorporated
in each one of the functions that the developer created and
deployed in Google Cloud Functions;
- A RESTART button following the save behavior as above buttons with
RESTART capability.
- A better and improved log view. The actual LOG view has a Slow
performance to show the log items and also it doesn't allow fast searching
for past log items. For example, whenever we need to look for a block of
log items that happened in the past, it's very difficult to access that
block of code.
- Capability to save the log to an external tool.

I did not find any stability issues yet.

Our actual phase in development (MVP), doesn't allow me to give my opinion on this point.

Currently, it has not been necessary to contact technical support, due to the vast and informative documentation with Google Standard.

We tried to use the AWS cloud. They have a very good solution, although the documentation is a little verbose, in my humble opinion.

The setup is very easy and straightforward. You just need to follow the documentation from the Google App Engine.

They have a free tier that will cover most projects. For more intensive use, you pay as you use it, but the price is very cheap.

We evaluated Amazon AWS, but due to the reasons explained above, especially the flowery documentation, we decided to go through Google App Engine and Google Firebase. We have no regrets at all.

I would say that they should go ahead with Google App Engine and Google Firebase.

We use the solution for user management.

The solution is useful for managing users and user authentication.

We had some compatibility issues with Elixir. It had some library compatibility issues. We did a workaround through Google Cloud Functions and achieved the desired output.

I have been using the solution for the last four years.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. In the past, we had 70,000 users. The usage was reduced later.

The initial setup is simple. The solution is cloud-based.

I rate the pricing a five out of ten.

Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

This solution supports our real time database. We also use it for AB testing and for its Google Cloud functions. We make use of Crashlytics and reporting on details.

The best features are the cloud functions.

We have experienced many challenges with the realtime database. Every time we need to retrieve chat history that has multiple observers, it will execute multiple times. The UI for the realtime database could be simplified.

I have used this solution for three years. 

This is a stable solution but requires some improvement. 

The technical support for this solution is good.

You can use this solution for lightweight use but I would not recommend being dependant on it. When you want to scale, you will need to have your own server, services and infrastructure.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten. 

The most valuable features of Google Firebase have been Analytics, Remote Config, and Crashlytics. Additionally, a lot of companies have used push notifications which is important. There is little maintenance required.

Google Firebase could improve the ability to create our own reports, other than what's available on the dashboard. For example, if we want to customize the report or export the data, this is a large task. 

Crashlytics was not very helpful, it doesn't give enough information to narrow down the problem.

I have been using Google Firebase for approximately one and a half years.

Google Firebase is stable and we don't have any performance issues.

The scalability of Google Firebase is good, but there are some limitations. For example, once you are set up, there's no way you can delete the data or change the settings. It's durable, handles many loads, and pushes the data when the user is not aware.

I have not used technical support.

The setup of Google Firebase was an easy process.

We are using the free version of Google Firebase.

Google Firebase is a very good solution.

I rate Google Firebase an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the platform to manage our apps. For example, in one instance, we get data from the Australian government regarding the cost of fuel via an API. Then we store the data in Firestore and then we use it in our app, according to the state and according to the cities to show the price of fuel within them.

The processing time has been drastically reduced. We have it down to a few minutes from 45 minutes. It's made everything so much faster.

Using the batch, it takes mere minutes to update the server. Normally, if we have a task, such as 12,000 records to be updated, it used to take 45 minutes to update. Now, after changing the code to a batch query it takes around one minute or less than one minute to update the records to Firestore.

If there's data added to the solution, there's a good record of it so it's easy to track everything.

Everything is updated automatically, which is very helpful.

The solution has a lot of features related to notifications and analytics. You can see information about how many users are on the app and from which country they are using the app.

Earlier I was using Firebase, however, now I am using Firestore. Firestore is much better than Firebase as it is the advanced version of Firebase and also it reduces the developer's time even more. It provides for queries. In Firebase you don't have that many queries to implement, get, or sort data. Firestore provides a lot of queries including MySQL. We find it much better. Firebase should offer some more of the features that exist in Firestore.

The solution needs to offer capabilities to work offline. Like Firestore, we should be able to do insertion, updating, and deletion offline. 

When we connect to the internet, it should automatically update data to the server.

I've been using the solution for the last two years.

The solution is very stable and very reliable. There aren't bugs or glitches. They have a Crashlytic feature as well, where you can see on which line of code the app has crashed if you need to. It's very transparent.

The solution is scalable and easy to use. As a developer, when I'm working on it, I know what I want out of my database. We can add the APIs and WAP services that we use with ease. We can build both a front end and back end with it. It's also fast. It can be used for both apps and web development as well. It's flexible.

We have five people at our organization that use it. There are two developers on iOS and two on Android and then we have a developer for the backend tool.

The solution offers very good documentation of everything. They also provide demos regarding the Firestore or Firebase or any feature you want to implement. It's not very tough to use anything due to the proper documentation. Therefore, we don't really need to reach out to technical support to do any troubleshooting.

We currently use Firestore and we like it much better due to the fact that you can work offline and there are many excellent features that just aren't available in Firebase.

We previously used Back4App. It has similar functionality to Firebase. We switched, however, due to the fact that Firebase is easy to handle and they have great documentation available. 

I'm also still actually using Back4App, however, I don't find that great. I found Firebase easier in comparison to Back4App. There just isn't the same level of documentation. I really have to search for information. 

Also, unlike Firebase, you have to buy a plan for it, no matter the number of users whereas Firebase is free for the first few users.

The solution is not complex. It's very straightforward. It is very easy to import or add. It is a very easy process.

During the first week, we arranged pre-requisites on the Firebase console. We added a package name, and an app name and updated the server file. After that, we downloaded it and add it to our project then ran the project. Everything is automatic. There are also files that we added and are updated. 

The deployment is very fast. It is about five minutes in total. It depends upon the internet speed, of course. Initially, we had to run the app on our device.

We have one or two people that handle maintenance.

A developer has to maintain the upgrades of the libraries and Cadency versions. Whenever we add any feature or something, or if then we have to upgrade the version for different dependencies, we'll have to do some maintenance. The maintenance part involves looking for cracks in the apps. 

Right now, we're using the free version. The solution allows for a specific number of users that can use it for free. Then, then the plan can be upgraded according to the number of users, or according to the storage that we need on Firebase. Pricing, therefore, depends upon the client or the number of users coming to the app.

Typically, we start with the free option, and if we need to, we'll ask the client to upgrade the plan.

Under the free plan, they offer authentication, and have a Firestore Cloud Function, hosting, and a real-time database as well as storage, therefore you do get a lot of things included and you don't have to pay for any of it until you add too many users or need more storage.

I'd advise users actually go to Firestore instead of Firebase, as there are just a lot more features that you have access to.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If it offered the same features as Firestore, I'd rate it higher.

The primary use case for this solution is the backend for the mobile app.

We tried to save costs by cutting some unnecessary operational things in the infrastructure and in the backend.

The main feature for us is that the tools are all in one place and that you don't have to bother with the backend system and the infrastructure.

As we were not able to calculate the amount of traffic and the bandwidth, we were not able to calculate the pricing accurately. There was no way of knowing how the rise in traffic would impact the price.

While we used this solution, it was quite stable and it worked. We have had five people trying and working with this platform.

We haven't tested the scalability performance of this platform. We did not do any stress or any other load tests. Although I have not tested this myself, I have read that there are some problems with the scalability.

We did not have a need to contact the technical support.

We are using Mircosoft Azure in parallel with Google Firebase.

The initial setup was easy to install and it is easy to use, very friendly. 

We implemented ourselves. We did not use any third party.

It is not easy to calculate the cost per copy, use or if the load rose dramatically we did not know how that would impact the final price.

The pricing for the authentication is based on SMS rates and is not consistent all over the world. For example, the cost in the US and Canada is one cent, but six cents in Serbia and the rest of the world. This should be adjusted. 

We did evaluate other options, including AWS, and one more platform based in Python. 

It's a good product for prototyping, with a nice interface and is easy to work with, but difficult to predict the cost.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Firebase has multiple uses. My team uses it for the mobile app, while the audit team uses Firebase for the web app. We are also using Firebase to handle notifications into the mobile and web app.

I love Firebase's notifications, crash analytics, and bug tracking. It gives you detailed reporting about app usage and users.

Firebase's real-time information isn't technically real-time. It takes a while to upload user activity into the app. It's not as fast as Datadog, the other solution we use. 

I've been using Firebase for two years at my current company, but they were using it before I was hired. 

Firebase is stable.

I believe Firebase is scalable. 

Firebase was already set up when I started, but I know that the integration steps are explained well in detailed documentation.

I rate Google Firebase eight out of 10. Firebase is a good product. The free version is decent, so you can start with that and pay for more features as your needs grow. I think it's a fantastic product to start with.