Azure Red Hat OpenShift vs Google App Engine comparison

Microsoft and Google are both solutions in the PaaS Clouds category. Microsoft is ranked #16 with an average rating of 8.3, while Google is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.4. Microsoft holds a 1.1% mindshare in PSP, compared to Google’s 2.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 96% of Google users who would recommend it.

Azure Red Hat OpenShift

Read 11 Azure Red Hat OpenShift reviews

677 Views
630 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Google App Engine

Read 36 Google App Engine reviews

1,885 Views
1,715 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

Azure Red Hat OpenShift

Google App Engine

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Google App Engine and Azure Red Hat OpenShift are cloud solutions for application deployment, competing in price and feature offerings. While Google App Engine is praised for pricing and customer service, Azure Red Hat OpenShift is seen as advantageous due to its robust feature set and capabilities.

Features: Google App Engine offers automatic scaling, flexible environment support, and integration with Google services. Azure Red Hat OpenShift provides a Kubernetes-based architecture, container orchestration, and hybrid cloud support.

Room for Improvement: Google App Engine could enhance its flexibility for alternative services, improve features beyond simplicity, and advance trial offerings. Azure Red Hat OpenShift may work on reducing setup complexity, refining pricing structure, and enhancing initial configuration processes.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Google App Engine features straightforward deployment with minimal configurations, preferred for developers seeking simplicity, and is recognized for efficient customer service. Azure Red Hat OpenShift requires more setup time and expertise but offers advanced deployment options. Customer service is strong, focused on enterprise needs despite lesser immediacy.

Pricing and ROI: Google App Engine's pricing is favorable for smaller businesses with potentially higher ROI for simple applications. Azure Red Hat OpenShift involves higher setup costs due to enterprise-grade features. The ROI is significant for larger organizations utilizing its full capabilities, justifying its investment for advanced cloud solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed Azure Red Hat OpenShift vs. Google App Engine Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Azure Red Hat OpenShift vs. Google App Engine

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,873 peers since 2012

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

Azure Red Hat OpenShift

Ranking in PaaS Clouds

16th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Google App Engine

Ranking in PaaS Clouds

5th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the PaaS Clouds category, the mindshare of Azure Red Hat OpenShift is 1.1%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Google App Engine is 2.5%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

PaaS Clouds Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Google App Engine	2.5%
Azure Red Hat OpenShift	1.1%
Other	96.4%

PaaS Clouds

Featured Reviews

DeepakMishra

CEO, Head of Sales and Business Development at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

Integrated cloud platform has streamlined app delivery and supported certified marketplace products

A potential area for improvement for Azure Red Hat OpenShift is to see managed identity support and ensure that some of the security features are not conflicting with Azure or Azure product features. I am sure in the future it will be more templatized so that we need not depend on Azure security features. Azure Red Hat OpenShift should be independent of Azure security features with respect to container scan and all that. Why would it use an Azure security feature? That is what I find. It is still yet to be GA and commonly available, but that is a strong reason for improvement.

Read full review

Rajesh Kadyan

Senior Engineer at Brillio

Have managed resources seamlessly thanks to robust platform capabilities

The areas of Google App Engine that I would to improve or enhance include its allowance for complete end-to-end deployment and scalability; however, it is manageable only for a few languages. For instance, it doesn't support languages C and C++, only basic support for Node.js, Java, and Ruby. It's not a comprehensive solution for all scenarios. Moreover, the security feature is based on IAM roles, but it should ideally be based on Active Directory (AD) roles. For IAM-based roles, we need to add the proper users and provide all security permissions manually. In an AD-based model, we would simply add users to a specific group, and all permissions would be inherited.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution's support and its automation tool that ensures we are secure and appropriately configured are the most valuable features of Azure Red Hat OpenShift."

"In Kubernetes, when traffic goes out of a pod, it has to have its own IP address. Every service that's going out requires another IP. But with OpenShift, you don't have to deal with any of those IPs because they use NAT."

"Flexibility, a very well-developed interface, and ease of learning are the most valuable features of Azure Red Hat OpenShift."

"It supports AKS and other projects like Kubernetes or EKS."

"As a consulting company, we implement Azure Red Hat OpenShift for our clients, who appreciate its integration capabilities for enhancing cloud operations. While we handle implementation, build processes, and automation, the operational responsibility lies with the customer. The service provides basic processes and support from Red Hat and Microsoft, which benefits clients by allowing them to focus on their business rather than regular operations like cluster upgrades."

"The most valuable features of the solution are accessibility and scalability."

"The functions and features in Azure Red Hat OpenShift that I have found most valuable are that it is a platform that is baked into Azure, and since it is baked into Azure, it is managed operation by Azure, which takes out the complexity of the infrastructure management and day two operations when compared with on-premise OpenShift."

"Red Hat is a very stable product with good integration with products such as Kubernetes, and it also offers migration tools."

More Azure Red Hat OpenShift pros

"I've noticed measurable benefits and return on investment by choosing Google App Engine."

"The WhatApp feature is the most valuable."

"The seamless integration of Google App Engine with other Google Cloud services has enhanced my application capabilities by allowing us to trigger Cloud Jobs from App Engine and some cloud functions, as handling messages through Pub/Sub."

"Seurity features - unauthorized individuals are unable to access certain applications."

"The auto-scaling feature helped us significantly in our fast-paced environment where the number of users was increasing rapidly."

"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 customer service is excellent and very responsive."

"The integration with Google's suite allows me to offer a comprehensive service to my enterprise clients."

More Google App Engine pros

Cons

"One of the things to notice is that this product can be expensive."

"Azure Red Hat OpenShift's support should be improved."

"I would rate the technical support from Microsoft as six."

"Technically, Azure Red Hat OpenShift is fine. However, its marketing could be improved, especially when compared to the robust marketing efforts of Azure, HPE, and Nutanix."

"I would like Azure Red Hat OpenShift to be more open to new frameworks and languages. Currently, if I create a pod with Rust, it doesn't work in OpenShift, and I must create a layer of interpretation."

"There is room for improvement in terms of orchestration. While Azure orchestration offers valuable features, it's worth noting that it may not match the level of orchestration provided by Kubernetes itself."

"Regarding room for improvement, there's always room, but it's mainly about Azure itself rather than Azure Red Hat OpenShift. Azure is not as advanced as AWS in terms of supported services. AWS is the leader in this area. However, there's no need for service improvement in Azure Red Hat OpenShift as the service is excellent. I don't need additional features because I can customize it according to the customer's needs."

"The product is expensive."

More Azure Red Hat OpenShift cons

"Difficult to assess how pricing is managed."

"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."

"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required."

"Some clients don't use it because Google is very unstable with their products. Google has terminated many promising products in the past, and some clients have stated, 'This is from Google, we don't trust it because Google can change their mind any day.'"

"The documentation and community are lacking for this product."

"The initial setup is complex as it is customized based on different clients, and it can range from one to three years, requiring niche-specific technical resources."

"The support for the Indian region is not as good as compared to the support that is offered to the regions in Europe."

"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."

More Google App Engine cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"Azure Red Hat OpenShift is not a low-price solution; it's expensive. Pricing depends on the strategy and whether you buy it directly from Red Hat or the Azure portal. Additionally, some customers may need a complete disaster recovery solution, which requires additional licensing and software products for implementation, such as backups."

"It is expensive compared to a similar product."

"Compared to other cloud environments like Amazon or Google, Azure Red Hat OpenShift is an expensive solution."

"I would like to have more free application with it. Some of the applications, I am paying more for them. I think that they must be free."

"We pay the license yearly. It's about $6 a month, which is $72 a year per person, so it's about $500."

"If we don't know how to work with the tool, we might have some spikes in price."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which PaaS Clouds solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Comparison Review

it_user8586

Engineer at a tech consulting company with 51-200 employees

Aug 14, 2013

Amazon vs Rackspace vs Microsoft vs Google: Cloud Hosting Services Comparison

Amazon Web Services, Rackspace OpenStack, Microsoft Windows Azure and Google are the major cloud hosting and storage service providers. Athough Amazon is top of them and is oldest in cloud market, Rackspace, Microsoft and Google are giving tough competition to each other and to Amazon also for…

Read full review

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

19%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

Educational Organization

11%

University

10%

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	7

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	13

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Red Hat OpenShift?

The pricing for OpenShift is similar to other solutions like Docker ( /products/docker-37146-reviews ) Studio. The plans with ARO and AWS are standard in the market. However, using OpenShift on-pre...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Azure Red Hat OpenShift?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Azure Red Hat OpenShift?

My use case for Azure Red Hat OpenShift is for an employee engagement application and HR, and I have also used it for an agentic bot.

See all answers

What do you like most about Google App Engine?

The product's setup and deployment phases are easy.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Google App Engine?

I believe it is reasonably priced. I've never heard anyone express that the licenses are too expensive.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Google App Engine?

The error logging system in Google App Engine could be enhanced. While there are troubleshooting documents with Google-defined error logs, identifying the exact root cause can be challenging. Often...

See all answers

Comparisons

Red Hat OpenShift vs Azure Red Hat OpenShift

Compared 24% of the time

Amazon AWS vs Azure Red Hat OpenShift

Compared 17% of the time

Amazon EKS vs Azure Red Hat OpenShift

Compared 14% of the time

Google Cloud vs Azure Red Hat OpenShift

Compared 14% of the time

Pivotal Cloud Foundry vs Azure Red Hat OpenShift

Compared 6% of the time

More Azure Red Hat OpenShift Competitors

Microsoft Azure vs Google App Engine

Compared 20% of the time

Amazon AWS vs Google App Engine

Compared 17% of the time

Heroku vs Google App Engine

Compared 11% of the time

VMware Tanzu Platform vs Google App Engine

Compared 9% of the time

Pivotal Cloud Foundry vs Google App Engine

Compared 3% of the time

More Google App Engine Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Azure Red Hat OpenShift

March 2026

Download Azure Red Hat OpenShift product report

Buyer's Guide

Google App Engine

March 2026

Download Google App Engine product report

Overview

Azure Red Hat OpenShift provides highly available, fully managed OpenShift clusters on demand, monitored and operated jointly by Microsoft and Red Hat. Kubernetes is at the core of Red Hat OpenShift. OpenShift brings added-value features to complement Kubernetes, making it a turnkey container platform as a service (PaaS) with a significantly improved developer and operator experience.

Microsoft

Google App Engine is a Platform-as-a-Service (Paas) provider that equips web application developers with all the resources and tools that they need to develop, test, and run their applications on Google's infrastructure. Everything is built into the kit, so with one download of the SDK, you'll be well on your way to first-rate apps.

Google

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

Khan Academy, Best Buy, Gigya, MetOffice, Getaround, Mimiboard, NewsLimited, WebFilings, and CloudLock.

Buyer's Guide

Azure Red Hat OpenShift vs. Google App Engine

March 2026

Free Report: Azure Red Hat OpenShift vs. Google App Engine

Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Red Hat OpenShift vs. Google App Engine and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Azure Red Hat OpenShift vs. Google App Engine 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.