Google App Engine Reviews

I use Google App Engine primarily for deploying front-end applications with server-side rendering. I have multiple front-end applications deployed in React and Next.js, and I use Google App Engine for server-side front-end rendering.

The most valuable features of Google App Engine include the ease of rolling back deployments when failures occur, the ability to track deployment times, and the feature to split traffic between different instances. I also appreciate the Google App Engine standard environment because it handles traffic scaling without manual intervention.

Google App Engine's support is very poor. In the Flex environment, SSH access is not available for private instances. Deployment in the flexible instance is slow and instances of previous versions sometimes do not stop. Additionally, documentation about the inability to SSH into private flexible instances is lacking.

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

The initial deployment of Google App Engine was straightforward. Google App Engine provides numerous services and supports different environments like Node-based environments and Docker images, making it an easy choice for simple deployments.

I have not experienced any crashing or instability with Google App Engine. It is generally stable but has an issue with long deployment times in the flexible instances.

Google App Engine scales well in the standard environment, which automatically handles traffic without manual scaling. However, scalability can be an issue with the flexible instances due to deployments taking longer.

Google Cloud support for Google App Engine is very poor, with unresponsive and unaware agents. It took them almost a month to inform me that SSH is not possible with private instances. I would rate the technical support a two out of ten.

Negative

Initially, I used AWS and was searching for a similar solution when I switched to GCP. I selected Google App Engine due to time constraints. Later, I found Cloud Run and Kubernetes Engine to be more efficient alternatives.

The initial setup of Google App Engine was simple, allowing for easy deployment suitable for users new to cloud environments. The YAML configuration is straightforward, making it manageable for developers.

Pricing for Google App Engine is reasonable and affordable for front-end applications, which do not consume much server space. My GCP billing is about 10 lakh INR per month, and Google App Engine contributes only 25,000 to 30,000 INR.

I evaluated Cloud Run and Kubernetes Engine. Cloud Run is faster and more efficient than Google App Engine for our needs.

Google App Engine is very suitable for users who need quick deployments without prior cloud knowledge. However, it lacks features and control for those needing private instances. Overall, I rate it seven out of ten based on my use case considerations.

Private Cloud

Google

My current use case for Google App Engine is for a business, an industrial business application.

The functions and features of Google App Engine that I have found most valuable are that it is serverless, and the learning curve is easy to follow.

When comparing Google App Engine with AWS, I get a solution directly in Google App Engine. I deploy a Python script, put the HTML files and the database in place. With AWS, I tried to understand it once and had to manage numerous components, which was overwhelming.

The main benefits I get from Google App Engine are that it allows me to deploy a web app very simply.

I appreciate Google App Engine. The challenge I encounter is that 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.' They would be left stranded despite having a wind-down period.

The performance aspect of Google App Engine was satisfactory and worked effectively.

Though it was not a huge application distributed over 500 sites, what we had implemented worked effectively.

I have been working with Google App Engine for about eight years.

The initial setup for Google App Engine is approximately halfway straightforward because I have to set up the whole environment in Python and connect in Linux for my local environment with the cloud. I need to synchronize all of that, which isn't straightforward. Once it is working, it functions properly, but the initial setup process requires effort.

The stability of Google App Engine was perfectly stable, with no complaints.

I have not utilized the automation scalability feature of Google App Engine.

I could find all the solutions I needed on Google or Stack Exchange, so that was not an issue. Support is all automated. I never needed to speak to an agent, fortunately. All questions were answered via the portals.

Positive

It is easy to integrate Google App Engine with other Google Cloud solutions, especially with the database Firebase.

Once the IT department learns that they can trust Gmail, Workspace, and similar services, there remains hesitation when they discover the application runs on Google App Engine, leading them to decline its use.

I would recommend Google App Engine to others.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Google App Engine a seven out of ten.

Public Cloud

Google

My main use case for Google App Engine currently is monitoring.

I do not have any other use cases, other than monitoring, right now.

The features of Google App Engine that I have found most valuable for my use cases include its easy deployment process, where there is minimal configuration required, allowing a few details in a configuration file before pushing it to Google App Engine, which auto-scales and requires less maintenance with no downtime over three years.

However, one drawback is that the app needs to be written to be compatible with Google App Engine, making it not cloud agnostic, hindering straightforward migration to other platforms such as AWS.

I have utilized the automatic scalability feature of Google App Engine, as we set it to manage everything by itself without needing to configure many things manually, and it has scaled automatically in the past without requiring any manual changes.

From Google App Engine, I have seen the positive impact of very low maintenance requirements, as we deployed it three years back without the need for ongoing maintenance, allowing it to run smoothly compared to on-premise servers.

I haven't used many other GCP services, but in Google App Engine, I have used error reporting, which sends alerts via email when the application encounters issues, allowing us to check the status through dashboards and metrics.

Google App Engine's real-time logging feature is used all the time, especially for audits, where logs are shared and screenshots are taken from the logging dashboard for whatever logs are required.

I have been working with Google App Engine for around four years in this company, starting with one service that I deployed on Google App Engine around three to three and a half years ago, and it is still running today.

I did not participate in the initial setup.

The last time that I used Google App Engine was three years ago when I deployed the service there, which is still running, and currently, we are in monitoring mode where we review its health and monitor any alerts monthly.

In terms of global reach and redundancy capabilities, I have only deployed Google App Engine in one region, and I haven't had the opportunity to utilize its redundancy feature or deployment across multiple regions.

I have never communicated with the technical support of Google App Engine.

Positive

Before Google App Engine, I have parallelly used AWS, including ECS, EKS, and deploying on EC2 instances, as well as Heroku.

I decided to start working with Google App Engine because when I joined my company, the approved technology was AWS for most teams, but my team started deploying some applications on Google App Engine due to its low maintenance, leading us to create a couple of apps on the platform despite most of our services running on AWS.

I did not participate in the initial setup.

I have noticed a return on investment in terms of less maintenance, but it depends on the organization's standard deployment preferences. Some prefer on-premise systems while others may prefer AWS or Azure, which affects the overall perception of Google App Engine's value.

I haven't been involved on the pricing side, so I'm not exactly aware of the costs, although we did analyze log retention costs, but overall, I'm not sure how Google App Engine compares to other providers.

I have utilized the automatic scalability feature of Google App Engine, as we set it to manage everything by itself without needing to configure many things manually, and it has scaled automatically in the past without requiring any manual changes.

I find the documentation a bit complex and difficult to grasp, as the contents are distributed in many places, making it hard to find exactly what I'm looking for.

I have used documentation frequently, especially while deploying and creating the app.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Google App Engine a 7.

Public Cloud

Google

I am a Java developer and primarily use Google App Engine for UI-based applications and hobby projects. I have used it for various applications, including CRM kind of applications. I test and create apps, primarily focusing on these use cases for my personal projects.

What I find most valuable about Google App Engine is its support for open-source development. It is not difficult to get into, which is a great advantage. The solution provides a lot of statistics about performance, such as read and write metrics by default. It helps with managing applications through inbuilt APIs and log monitoring. The scalability aspect is very well-designed, so I do not have to worry about disk space and scaling configurations. It also scales beautifully, which is impressive. Google App Engine offers a cloud-based solution for free, especially for Java, making it a cost-effective option compared to expensive VMs.

The main areas for improvement in Google App Engine include security restrictions and deployment processes. The whitelist and blacklist of APIs can be a deal-breaker due to security concerns, and the deployment process is chaotic. A steep learning curve also exists due to the non-standard Google way of doing things, which could deter people from adapting this solution. Customization needs improvement as the current limitation to Google's way restricts flexibility.

My usage of Google App Engine has been on and off since its launch in the 2007-2008 timeframe.

My experience with the deployment of Google App Engine is that it takes quite some time and involves non-standard intermediate steps. The deployment process can be problematic as it initially involves various steps on the local system before sending it back to Google App Engine. It requires an IDE plugin, which adds an extra step, not typically standard.

I have never encountered any issues with the stability of Google App Engine for any of my applications. I would rate it between nine or ten in terms of stability.

Although I have not explored every route related to scalability, when I have tested it, it scales beautifully, without any noticeable problems. I would rate the scalability as nine out of ten, appreciating its design that does not require much attention to scaling configurations or costs.

Prior to using Google App Engine, I did not really have any cloud-hosting options apart from VMs, which were costly. Google App Engine was appealing due to its free Java-based cloud solution.

The initial setup of Google App Engine requires installing an IDE plugin, which is an additional step aimed at improving the developer's experience. However, this can be awkward as the steps are not in line with standard practices, leading to a steep learning curve.

I could handle the deployment on my own, and since it is mostly for hobby projects, I manage it alone.

I have always used the free tier of Google App Engine, so I do not have insights into its pricing structure or costs.

At the time of choosing Google App Engine, the only other option was using a VM, which was costly.

Although Google App Engine has a steep learning curve making it taxing for users, it is a good platform for Java developers, specifically due to its cost advantages. Flexibility and ease of customization need improvement. I rate Google App Engine an eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

Google

I use the solution in my company to deploy web applications.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it can be easily deployed and run on our company's server.

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

I have been using Google App Engine for two years. I don't remember the version of the solution.

It is a stable solution. My company has not faced any issues with the stability of the product.

My company, which manages a small business, uses Google App Engine internally. There are around 20 to 30 users of the tool.

Whether there are plans to increase the product's usage is something that depends on the customers for whom we developed applications using Google App Engine.

I have had a great experience after contacting the product's technical support team since they could quickly resolve my issues.

My company has extensive experience with AWS.

The product's setup and deployment phases are easy.

Despite the fact that I did not know much about the product's setup process, the whole deployment took me around 15 to 20 minutes. Though there are other companies in the market offering different solutions, many companies prefer to use Google. Google App Engine can be considered a great option for any company. Once the setup of CI/CD pipelines is completed, we don't have to worry about the deployment of the product in our company since code commit can help us go for automatic deployment.

The product simplifies app development processes since once the local development is completed, my company has a common configuration in place where we can specify the requirements to run an application, after which we need to do a one-click GCP deployment for the entire application. In general, the two offer managed deployment options, so we don't have to worry about deployment. In my company, we just configure the servers and check if anything needs to be containerized, after which GCP handles everything for us.

A project where Google App Engine scalability was essential was when, recently, my company was involved with Golang to build a web application, after which deploying that application on Google App Engine was really easy. In my company, we also had a Django application in Python, and it was easy to deploy.

As my company deals with small-scale projects, the automated scaling feature of Google App Engine is not something we thought about.

I wouldn't recommend the product to others unless the potential end users use GCP and have a word with their vendors about their plans. One specific recommendation from me would be that the product's potential uses should stick with a particular vendor. If someone wants a product that is easy to deploy and scalable, then multiple options are available in the market.

The product integrates very well with other Google solutions.

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.

We use the solution for migrating from on-premises to the cloud or for some collocations of software to Google Cloud. We work with App Engine and other serverless solutions like Cloud Run and Google Kubernetes Engine. Additionally, we have some clients working with App Engine.

The solution is serverless, so we don't have to operate it. The requests can go from zero to thousands in a second. The product works with most of the runtimes. I can put my app there, and things go through without much effort.

It is a platform as a service model. The best thing about the solution is that we do not have to operate it. These features are suitable for those who know and like cloud-native solutions.

Some features of runtime don't work well in App Engine. Sometimes we must tune it ourselves or ask Google’s team to improve it. It is the most important thing. Our clients always complain about it.

We are a Premier Partner of the product.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten.

We are resellers. We get issues fixed easily with the help of support. It's not so easy sometimes because Google is so big. Sometimes they don't give us the right attention we need. We are in a hurry, but for them, we are just another customer. That's exactly my business. That is why I am selling the product. For Google, the customer is just another customer, but for me, they are very special.

Neutral

The product is simple to set up. We have to set up some config files. We can then use the product for out scaling, load balancing, and integrating with databases. Google has a platform as a service to integrate with databases like Cloud SQL, PostgreSQL, MySQL, or SQL Server from Microsoft. These are available as a platform as a service in Google Cloud. They are integrated natively with App Engine. These tools are very good and enable things to come through very fast.

The effort required for deployment depends on the complexity. The app server is not complex to set up. Sometimes migrating the database is more complex than migrating the app server to App Engine. Effort is not required for deploying the application itself, but it is required for the things that are integrated with it.

We can put your own runtime. It might function perfectly. It's the same as putting it in a VM. If we use the flexible module of App Engine, we can work with containers. A container is an operating system like Linux. We put our things in it. We have a library and runtime for things to come through smoothly. Most of the time, the problem is not the application itself but the things that go with it.

The number of people required to deploy the solution depends on the complexity. One person can do most of the things in a simple setup. If it is a complex setup, we get a senior DevOps person to do it. Google maintains the product.

It is a very good solution, but there are some problems. If we do the right thing, we will have a very good return on investment. However, we will pay more if we don't know how. We have to be careful. It's not for new buyers. The return on investment will be very low if we do not know how to use it.

If we don't know how to work with the tool, we might have some spikes in price. It will increase a lot of our bill. I rate the pricing a six out of ten.

I work as a presales cloud architect. I am a generalist. I am not a specialist. I know the product, its features, and how to integrate it with other products from Google. People considering the solution must be careful because if they don't tune it, they will pay a lot of money. It's not for new buyers. We have to know what exactly we're doing. People should try to buy the product with the help of a specialist. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

A lot of services we offer are developed and hosted on App Engine,.

As a serverless platform, it saves the effort needed in provisioning and administering backend servers.

App Engine scales really well and It's very clear to know where you're at with App Engine, whether it's the total amount of memory you're using or the number of instances being used by your application. 
Additionally, Administering App Engine from a user's perspective is simple with their very intuitive dashboards.

The documentation is an area that could definitely be improved. Another area of improvement would be the community which is poor and Google could do a lot better on that front. 

I know that my team members who have been working with the solution for just a year or two find the architecture to be quite difficult. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The solution is stable, we've only had two disruptions in our three years of using this product. 

We use a third party support partner of Google for our support. We're very happy with the service they provide and they have always managed to resolve our issues. 

I think the major difference between Google App Engine and every other similar product is its management. It's easier to manage App Engine than many of the other platforms that I've used. Google did a good job in terms of building a user interface so you can easily explain it to a non-technical person. It's just that the use case is very, very limited. Apart from web apps, you can't run other specialized applications on App Engine. 

If you're building a multi-threaded application on App Engine it's very tricky. For multi-threaded applications, I would go for something much more robust like Cloud Run or Cloud GKE, not App Engine.

The initial setup was straightforward for me because I understand the App Engine architecture. I've heard from other developers that they find it very difficult to set up App Engine. For web applications, setup is very very easy and straightforward; for non-web or other special applications, setting up App Engine is challenging. 

We use the paid version under the standard environment and it's relatively expensive compared to other services.

App Engine was built to handle a particular use case which is web applications and that's what it's good at. For applications running in containers or requiring Linux dependencies or applications requiring multiple processes, App Engine is not really your go-to product. You would choose a different solution for that.

I rate this solution seven out of 10. 

We use this solution for communication, collaboration, and documentation. We're using Google Business Starter. The solution is deployed on a public cloud.

There are about seven people using this solution in my company.

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. If I share my Google Sheets, as I'm updating, other people can see the updates happening at the same time.

The main thing that could be improved is the pricing. It could be cheaper, especially for those in Africa where we have a high exchange rate.

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.

I have been using this solution for about seven years.

It's stable.

The solution is scalable.

Initial setup was straightforward. On a scale of 1 to 5, I would give it a 4.

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

I would give the pricing a 2 on a scale of 1 to 5. The pricing is really not bad. The kill is that my country's economy is causing problems. So with each passing day, our currency loses value, and it sort of looks more expensive each day.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

It is a good product. For someone looking to implement this product, I would advise them to go with it. It's better for people in a stable economy where their pricing is constant and they can predict what it will cost throughout the year.

Public Cloud