Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS) vs. Google Cloud Run

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Amazon EKS
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (Amazon EKS) is a managed container service to run and scale Kubernetes applications in the cloud or on-premises, available on AWS or on-premise through Amazon EKS Anywhere.
$0.10
per hour of each cluster created
Google Cloud Run
Score 9.1 out of 10
N/A
Google Cloud Run enables users to build and deploy scalable containerized apps written in any language (including Go, Python, Java, Node.js, .NET, and Ruby) on a fully managed platform. Cloud Run can be paired with other container ecosystem tools, including Google's Cloud Build, Cloud Code, Artifact Registry, and Docker. And it features out-of-the-box integration with Cloud Monitoring, Cloud Logging, Cloud Trace, and Error Reporting to ensure the health of an application.N/A
Pricing
Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS)Google Cloud Run
Editions & Modules
Amazon EKS Cluster
$.10
per hour of each cluster created
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon EKSGoogle Cloud Run
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS)Google Cloud Run
Considered Both Products
Amazon EKS
Chose Amazon EKS
Depends on the public cloud using and better integrations within the cloud native services. Using AWS cloud for majority of the platform so it was better to use the same vendor service
Chose Amazon EKS
It feels like AWS is behind the EKS race, the only advantage I'm able to see right now is the support of IPv6, however, trying to promote AWS alternatives that are different from the market and more like a vendor locking solutions like ECS/Fargate have kept AWS behind and …
Google Cloud Run
Chose Google Cloud Run
Most of our existing serverless services are deployed on Google to it was a natural choice. With the new artifact registry, its very easy to deploy. With git flows, its now even easier to update the deployment just with a commit to the main branch. The initial trial period is …
Chose Google Cloud Run
The other two obvious cloud providers have direct alternatives: AWS Lambda and Azure Functions. Both were also evaluated briefly (only to validate that they exist); however, the organization had settled on shifting to Google for business reasons, and therefore, the comparison …
Chose Google Cloud Run
Google Cloud Run is integrated into GCP resources, admin, and billing. But it is not as easy to use as some other platforms like Heroku.
Chose Google Cloud Run
Flexibility of features snd customzing options tha optimized the large process and make it on the the go to reuse the same process in multiple deployments ot rollouts
Chose Google Cloud Run
Cloud Run is just so much easier and straightforward to work with than EC2 when it comes to getting a Docker image up and running and serving requests.
Chose Google Cloud Run
Clear separation between container and execution layer.
Chose Google Cloud Run
Usage is easy and also we have GCP as out cloud partner hence we made up our mind to go with Cloud Run and so far no issues things are going fine with it. and getting good features from Google in it.
Chose Google Cloud Run
DigitalOcean auto scale droplets is still in early stages and is not on par with Google Cloud Run.

It is easy to develop and test Google Cloud Run applications compared to other available alternatives.
Chose Google Cloud Run
For us, Google Cloud Run is a complement to Google Tag Manager to enable server-side data collection.
Chose Google Cloud Run
AWS Lambda supports code zip package, enabling lower cold start time. Also, AWS Lambda pricing is much simpler, easier to understand.

Chose Google Cloud Run
The Goolge docs for their products as well as the UI is a lot nicer than AWS or Azure and in general I found it much easy to work with. We selected Google mainly because of startup credits and the support offered but can confidently say we would choose them again without that …
Features
Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS)Google Cloud Run
Container Management
Comparison of Container Management features of Product A and Product B
Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS)
8.9
Ratings
14% above category average
Google Cloud Run
7.3
Ratings
6% below category average
Security and Isolation9.00 Ratings8.60 Ratings
Container Orchestration8.00 Ratings8.40 Ratings
Cluster Management8.00 Ratings6.40 Ratings
Storage Management9.00 Ratings2.70 Ratings
Resource Allocation and Optimization9.00 Ratings8.10 Ratings
Discovery Tools8.00 Ratings7.60 Ratings
Update Rollouts and Rollbacks9.00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Self-Healing and Recovery10.00 Ratings8.10 Ratings
Analytics, Monitoring, and Logging10.00 Ratings7.50 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS)Google Cloud Run
Small Businesses
Portainer
Portainer
Score 9.6 out of 10
Portainer
Portainer
Score 9.6 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Enterprises
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS)Google Cloud Run
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.2
(0 ratings)
Usability
9.0
(0 ratings)
6.4
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS)Google Cloud Run
Likelihood to Recommend
Well suited for microservices architecture but can be a bit costly if less number of microservices or monolithic architecture hosted to be hosted on containers. Use of hybrid cluster instances also works well using both normal and fargate instances. Also the integration of audit and diagnostic logs of master nodes helps to reduce the unwanted access related issues.
Read full review
Microservices and RestFul API application as it is fast and reliant. Seamless integration with event triggers such as pubsub or event arc, so you can easily integrate that with usecases with file uploads, database changes, etc. Basically great with short-lived tasks, if however, you have long-running processses, Cloud Run might not be idle for this. For example if you have a long running data processing task, other solutions such as kubeflow pipelines or dataflow are more suited for this kind of tasks. Cloud Run is also stateless, so if you need memory, you will have to connect an external database.
Read full review
Pros
  • Upgrade the kubernetes clusters to the latest version with a single click
  • Auto scaling policies to automatically scale the nodes
  • Detailed logs and events on the cluster within the EKS clusters portal, cloudwatch logs and metrics
Read full review
  • Real-time autoscaling. Escalamento automático em tempo real
  • Simplified Continuous Deployment. Implantação contínua simplificada
  • Running tasks in the background. Execução de tarefas em segundo plano
Read full review
Cons
  • AWSIAM integration with Kubernetes RBAC could be better.
  • Enabling some add-ons like service mesh, and monitoring will be nice instead of having to install them yourself after the creation of the cluster.
  • EKS bootstrap time could be faster ...
Read full review
  • Cloud Run doesn't allow you to redeploy an already existing revision which can be inconvenient in some use cases
  • Tricky to get the deployment working to start but once it's working that's great
  • The actual deployment is not the fastest but it's not too bad
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
We definitely need to renew it because we dont own our own infrastructure and storage and we are happy with Cloud Run features
Read full review
Usability
Cluster maintanence is reduced, easier to deploy resources, great observability insights
Read full review
The UI/console is great... the documentation is top-notch for developers, but the CLI itself when you have to script around it is very complex and easy to forget some options... the downside of a generic command line client.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
No answers on this topic
Not seen any major issues when we run applications its good
Read full review
Performance
No answers on this topic
Initially we felt slow but slowly it picked up and easy to manage
Read full review
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
I was involved in the initial implementation setup, Its easy with the given documentaiton we can do ourself. Not that critical
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
It feels like AWS is behind the EKS race, the only advantage I'm able to see right now is the support of IPv6, however, trying to promote AWS alternatives that are different from the market and more like a vendor locking solutions like ECS/Fargate have kept AWS behind and focusing on the wrong things. EKS needs to really improve its integration with the Kubernetes ecosystem and have an enterprise solution for monitoring, backups, and service mesh.
Read full review
AWS Lambda supports code zip package, enabling lower cold start time. Also, AWS Lambda pricing is much simpler, easier to understand.
Other than that, the 2 products are very similar, including the Docker image support: the image must be built based on proprietary base image.
Obviously, if your other services are running in GCP, then Google Cloud Run is your only choice for tight integration, & private networking.
Read full review
Scalability
No answers on this topic
It has good auto scale feature and reliable also
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Migrating all our workloads from ec2 VMs to containers running in Kubernetes has been a huge improvement for the management and resilience of our Infrastructure.
  • EKS Upgrade process to a new version seems to be taking very long ....
  • EKS creation time usually takes over 10 minutes in us-east-1, we would like faster creation times to be under 5 minutes.
Read full review
  • It has saved us some costs since we now do not require a live server and have moved to a serverless workflow for these services
  • Breaking changes do not affect the entire application now that we have separated our concerns using a serverless service
  • Much easier to debug since we can now isolate our services and reduce the search space for finding/fixing bugs
Read full review
ScreenShots