CloudFoundry vs. Google App Engine

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
CloudFoundry
Score 10.0 out of 10
N/A
CloudFoundry is a free, open source cloud computing platform supported by the non-profit CloudFoundry. It is not tied to any particular cloud service, but can be self-hosted or run on any cloud service preferred.N/A
Google App Engine
Score 9.2 out of 10
N/A
Google App Engine is Google Cloud's platform-as-a-service offering. It features pay-per-use pricing and support for a broad array of programming languages.
$0.05
Per Hour Per Instance
Pricing
CloudFoundryGoogle App Engine
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Starting Price
$0.05
Per Hour Per Instance
Max Price
$0.30
Per Hour Per Instance
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
CloudFoundryGoogle App Engine
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
YesYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
CloudFoundryGoogle App Engine
Considered Both Products
CloudFoundry
Chose CloudFoundry
While Docker shines in providing support for volumes and stateful instances, Cloud foundry shines in providing support for deploying stateless services.

Heroku shines in integrating with Git and using commits to git as hooks to trigger deployments right from the command line. …
Google App Engine
Chose Google App Engine
For our organization, we selected Google App Engine which provides a reliable and efficient way to create and deploy apps moreover it supports a lot of languages and provides automatic debugging of code which enables us to deploy code to production as soon as development is …
Chose Google App Engine
If you have a small team which is also responsible for development of the product then surely go for it. And if you have a larger team with dedicated person to take care of deployments. Go for cheaper options such as compute engine or AWS (be sure to do your research on pricing …
Chose Google App Engine
We prefer Google App Engine over Linode when need to hosting applications for R&D and Testing. Since the deployment has much less configuration.
Chose Google App Engine
It's the manageability of the Google App Engine which made it a better option in our case.
It's quite straightforward to deploy on App-Engine.
No worries for monitoring setup
Chose Google App Engine
You can create and scale Kubernetes clusters quickly, but you have to keep an eye on that cluster. In-App Engine, you don't have to worry about infrastructure, but in some scenarios, Kubernetes fits better.
Chose Google App Engine
Google App Engine is the first product we picked up to store the mass data. Later we came to know that, firebase database is also similar to Google App Engine. But still, we didn't step into it. We will try it later.
Chose Google App Engine
Azure App Service is in par with Google App Engine although you may want to use Azure App Service if you are integrating with other Microsoft IT components, for example SQL Server. Google App Engine is great when in long run, you will be using Google cloud components, for …
Chose Google App Engine
App Engine is a much more streamlined system than EC2. There is a fundamental difference between them, but they are used for basically the same thing as far a I could tell -- to serve applications EC2 is certainly more complicated, but if offers more machine-level control if …
Chose Google App Engine
Google App Engine is very easy to use and mostly up to date makes it compatible with all old and new devices. The applications are very interactive and the prices are accessible for most users. The prices tend to get slightly expensive as we head on towards higher …
Chose Google App Engine
The two giants are Google and Amazon. Both are very similar however Google App Engine allows you to deploy your web applications through platforms like Python where as if you're using AWS, you have full control on the operating system services. Google is good because you pay as …
Chose Google App Engine
We were on another much smaller cloud provider and decided to make the switch for several reasons - stability, breadth of services, and security. In reviewing options, GCP provided the best mixtures of meeting our needs while also balancing the overall cost of the service as …
Chose Google App Engine
We commonly decide between App Service, Elastic Beanstalk, and App Engine. Normally, we do not have a strong preference for the services, it really comes down to whether or not there are other factors drawing us toward a particular platform. In the case of App Engine, it is a …
Chose Google App Engine
I think that Microsoft and Amazon are simply investing more in their offerings, and there are a bunch of cool PaaS solutions out there as well. Google App Engine is solid, and is probably the right choice for some projects. But ultimately one should evaluate each platform …
Chose Google App Engine
Azure - too Windows. Do not want IIS or Windows OS. AWS - too much configuration for the tasks at hand.
Chose Google App Engine
Google Apps is great for environments where the need for a more robust platform is not necessary if you are looking to have email and cloud collaboration enablement of your working staff. From the stand point of using both, I can see the value of both but it really depends on …
Chose Google App Engine
AWS and Heroku are both great, and I use them both extensively for different projects. Google App Engine was chosen because it is much more innovative than AWS, and because Heroku specializes in Ruby on Rails. Even though Heroku supports Java and other services, we feel Google …
Chose Google App Engine
With GAE it's a matter of "code your app and deploy it". You don't care on what servers or on how many servers it runs. System administration is done for you. With AWS you still have to be a system administrator with good knowledge and undestanding of load balancers, database …
Chose Google App Engine
You can spawn up your own cluster using Kubernetes or Container Engine which will scale automatically when configured properly, but you have to keep an eye on that cluster. In App Engine you don't have to worry about it at all, just ship your code and it will run.
Chose Google App Engine
We chose Google App Engine because it supplies the most infrastructure per dollar spent. It's much more expensive to use Amazon EC2 to scale to over a million users. Also, the engine's narrow language support system, while somewhat limiting, makes getting started quickly much …
Chose Google App Engine
Heroku allows for more flexibility, but GAE gives you more APIs and features by default, whereas Heroku might require you to implement them yourself.
Chose Google App Engine
  • No management of operating system
  • Cheaper
Chose Google App Engine
We left Lotus Notes for the (more versatile) Google Apps. We could never recommend the closed architecture of Lotus Notes. We have evaluated Office 365 and believe the product is compelling. So compelling, that we may consider a platform change…
Chose Google App Engine
Google App Engine stands out since it offers everything as being a platform as a service. The other options I used before, such as classical development with servers available either in house or in the cloud still require a lot of management and the software frameworks …
Features
CloudFoundryGoogle App Engine
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
CloudFoundry
9.8
Ratings
20% above category average
Google App Engine
8.7
Ratings
9% above category average
Ease of building user interfaces10.00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Scalability9.00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Development environment creation10.00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Development environment replication10.00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Issue recovery10.00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes10.00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Platform management overhead00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Workflow engine capability00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Platform access control00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Services-enabled integration00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
CloudFoundryGoogle App Engine
Small Businesses
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.7 out of 10
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.7 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
CloudFoundryGoogle App Engine
Likelihood to Recommend
10.0
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
8.3
(0 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
7.7
(0 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
8.4
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
CloudFoundryGoogle App Engine
Likelihood to Recommend
It's well suited if:
  • The organization has large number of applications that needs to be deployed frequently.
  • The organization is tied to the DevOps mindset.
  • The organization has programs in different languages.
  • The applications does not need EJB's support that servers like web logic provide.
It's less suited if:
  • The applications needs security configuration within the same CloudFoundry instance.
  • The organization, for whatever reason does not want developers to manage the instances.
Read full review
Google App Engine is especially well suited for situations where there is a variable workload during the day, e.g. inbound task processing with task queues. In this situation queues can be setup with parameters governing the process speed/scaling which allows you to easily balance performance with cost and meet a good balance.
Read full review
Pros
  • Support for Orgs and Spaces that allow for managing users and deployables within a large organization.
  • Easy deployment, deploying code is as simple as executing single line from CLI, thanks to build-packs.
  • Solid and rich CLI, that allows for various operations on the instance.
  • Isolated Virtual Machines called Droplets, that provide clean run time environment for the code. This used to be a problem with Weblogic and other application servers, where multiple applications are run on the same cluster and they share resources.
  • SSH capability for the droplet (isolated VM's are called droplets), that allows for real time viewing of the App code while the application is running.
  • Support for multiple languages, thanks to build-packs.
  • Support for horizontal scaling, scaling an instance horizontally is a breeze.
  • Support for configuring environment variable using the service bindings.
  • Supports memory and disk space limit allocation for individual applications.
  • Supports API's as well as workers (processes without endpoints)
  • Supports blue-green deployment with minimal down time
Read full review
  • Building an application that uses Google's Authentication, means users no longer need to remember an different user id and password. Once they are logged into to Google, they can seamlessly access your application hosted on Google App Engine.
  • Google App Engine automatically scales up and down. SO if your application receives a spike in user traffic, App Engine automatically launches additional instances of your application to cater for the increased traffic. Once App Engine detects that the spike is usage is over, it automatically scales down to handle the current traffic.
  • Google App Engine can be easily integrated with Google Cloud SQL, Google Compute Engine, Google Cloud Storage etc, so that you can build out a full application using one or more of Google's Cloud Platform products.
Read full review
Cons
  • Does not support stateful containers and that would be a nice to have.
  • Supports showing logs, but does not persist the logs anywhere. This makes relying on Cloud Foundry's logs very unreliable. The logs have to be persisted using other third party tools like Elk and Kibana.
Read full review
  • For beginners, there is a learning curve that can be reduced by decluttering the functionalities.
  • For much big migrations it takes to a lot of time to deploy which can be reduced.
  • The scaling of applications based on the user count is not seamless and it requires improvement.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
App Engine is a solid choice for deployments to Google Cloud Platform that do not want to move entirely to a Kubernetes-based container architecture using a different Google product. For rapid prototyping of new applications and fairly straightforward web application deployments, we'll continue to leverage the capabilities that App Engine affords us.
Read full review
Usability
No answers on this topic
Google App Engine is very intuitive. It has the common programming language most would use. Google is a dependable name and I have not had issues with their servers being down....ever. You can safely use their service and store your data on their servers without worrying about downtime or loss of data.
Read full review
Support Rating
No answers on this topic
Good amount of documentation available for Google App Engine and in general there is large developer community around Google App Engine and other products it interacts with. Lastly, Google support is great in general. No issues so far with them.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
While Docker shines in providing support for volumes and stateful instances, Cloud foundry shines in providing support for deploying stateless services. Heroku shines in integrating with Git and using commits to git as hooks to trigger deployments right from the command line. But it does not provide on-premise solution that Cloud foundry provides.
Read full review
App Engine is a much more streamlined system than EC2. There is a fundamental difference between them, but they are used for basically the same thing as far a I could tell -- to serve applications EC2 is certainly more complicated, but if offers more machine-level control if that's what you need. It can tend to cost more as well. App Engine is far more straightforward but there are limitations if you need to change the environment. But even then, Google Compute Engine also compares to EC2 and stays within GCP.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Positive impact, since it simplifies the deployment time by a huge margin. Without cloud foundry, deploying a code needs coordination with infrastructure teams, while with cloud foundry, its a simple one line command. This reduces the deployment time from at least few hours to few minutes. Faster deployments promote faster dev cycle iterations.
  • Code maintenance such as upgrading a Node or Java version is as simple as updating the build-pack. Without cloud foundry, using web logic, the specific version only supports a specific version of Java. So updating the version involves upgrading the version of web logic that needs to involve few teams. So without cloud foundry, it takes at least few days, with cloud foundry, its a matter of few mins.
  • Overall, happier Developers and thats harder to quantify.
Read full review
  • App Engine can scale basically infinitely so our users can always expect fast responsiveness.
  • App Engine has saved us money by only using the resources we need when we need them.
  • The security and IAM policies surrounding App Engine have saved a lot of head aches.
Read full review
ScreenShots