Google Cloud IoT vs. Microsoft Azure IoT Central

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Google Cloud IoT
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
The Google Cloud IoT Core is a fully managed service that allows you to easily and securely connect, manage, and ingest data from millions of globally dispersed devices. Cloud IoT Core, in combination with other services on Cloud IoT platform, provides a complete solution for collecting, processing, analyzing, and visualizing IoT data in real time to support improved operational efficiency.N/A
Azure IoT Central
Score 6.9 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft Azure IoT Central allows users to connect IoT devices to the cloud and offers centralized management to configure and updated connected devices.N/A
Pricing
Google Cloud IoTMicrosoft Azure IoT Central
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google Cloud IoTAzure IoT Central
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details——
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Google Cloud IoTMicrosoft Azure IoT Central
Considered Both Products
Google Cloud IoT

No answer on this topic

Azure IoT Central
Chose Microsoft Azure IoT Central
Before deciding to go with Microsoft Azure IoT Central, we considered Google, Datadog, and AWS alternatives. The reason we went with Azure was that the client was heavily invested in Microsoft technologies and Azure plays really well with other Microsoft products. The …
Top Pros

No answers on this topic

Top Cons

No answers on this topic

Features
Google Cloud IoTMicrosoft Azure IoT Central
Internet of Things
Comparison of Internet of Things features of Product A and Product B
Google Cloud IoT
6.9
2 Ratings
14% below category average
Microsoft Azure IoT Central
-
Ratings
IoT Device Management5.32 Ratings00 Ratings
Device Security9.01 Ratings00 Ratings
IoT Data Management7.52 Ratings00 Ratings
IoT Analytics7.52 Ratings00 Ratings
IoT Integration5.42 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Google Cloud IoTMicrosoft Azure IoT Central
Small Businesses
AWS IoT Core
AWS IoT Core
Score 7.6 out of 10
Portainer
Portainer
Score 9.3 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies

No answers on this topic

No answers on this topic

Enterprises
AWS IoT Core
AWS IoT Core
Score 7.6 out of 10

No answers on this topic

All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Google Cloud IoTMicrosoft Azure IoT Central
Likelihood to Recommend
6.3
(2 ratings)
8.2
(4 ratings)
User Testimonials
Google Cloud IoTMicrosoft Azure IoT Central
Likelihood to Recommend
Google
I consider myself very techy and found Google Cloud IoT platform very challenging to manage. The lack of tutorials and discussions to understand how each section works is very challenging. I specifically made a connection after several hours to Google Nest to third-party integration, Home Assistant. Shortly after Google Cloud upgraded to a new version breaking the connection. This was extremely frustrating. No service should take several hours to figure out, in my opinion, if it does, the platform is doing a poor job of making it easy. I'm personally very discouraged any time I ever have to use this platform. It's very hard to find answers.
Read full review
Microsoft
One scenario where it was appropriate was allowing us to communicate through apps with our temperature, moisture, and water quality sensors. It's great to have the recordings done automatically and sent back to a central processing point. It is also highly useful when used to collect this data around the clock. One situation where it was less appropriate was in trying to extend our beginning services to other businesses. This is really more of a logistical problem and not really one for the software.
Read full review
Pros
Google
  • Integration with different brands of microcontrollers including the one currently used by Espresiff.
  • The platform is very robust and secure.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • Creation and management of user roles, who can access your IoT resources and configure the level of access, very granular and self-explanatory
  • Configuration of apps and devices, integrations, and administrations are done in an intuitive way and it's easy to navigate your way through the available settings.
  • The documentation is really excellent, everything is explained succinctly and there are enough practical examples to get you started.
  • Existing templates can save you a lot of time in getting your desired setup complete with less effort and time invested.
Read full review
Cons
Google
  • Not beginner friendly.
  • Needs more tutorials and walk throughs on how to get started.
  • Very complicated and unless you know what you are doing you will be lost.
  • Lack of material found on how to do each section / services.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • Lack of info on error messages
  • GUI misses important configuration options
  • Not well documented options inside IoT Hub for example (consumer groups)
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Google
Although comparisons are hateful, even more so when we are talking about leading brands where the quality of their services are indisputable, the general environment of Google was more familiar to me since I use, for example, Google Firebase on a daily basis, where part of the concepts are similar, without Without a doubt, AWS services are excellent, but it was easier for me to go through the functions of Google Cloud IoT.
Read full review
Microsoft
Handles excellently and after trying a few of them I saw that it is most suitable for the current work of the company and all the products that the company works with
Read full review
Return on Investment
Google
  • The amount of hours to get things integrated is negative.
  • The amount of hours researching how to get devices integrated is negative.
  • Overall the amount of time and effort getting things working has been a negative experience.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • It has allowed us to expand the number of times data is collected without adding cost.
  • It has allowed us to train our technicians in the use the technology so they gain more useful skills.
  • We have been able to develop a business model that is not bound by our physical location.
Read full review
ScreenShots