---
title: "Civo vs AWS vs Azure vs GCP: Kubernetes Provider Comparison"
source: Panaversity Learn Agentic AI
source_url: https://github.com/panaversity/learn-agentic-ai
licence: Apache-2.0
domain: agentic-ai
subdomain: panaversity-agentic
date_added: 2026-04-25
---

# Civo vs AWS vs Azure vs GCP: Kubernetes Provider Comparison

## Overview
This guide provides a detailed comparison of major cloud providers' Kubernetes offerings, focusing on key aspects relevant to enterprise deployments.

## Pricing Comparison

### Civo
- **Managed Kubernetes**: $0.0075 per hour per node
- **Storage**: $0.10 per GB per month
- **Load Balancer**: $0.0075 per hour
- **Network**: Free egress up to 1TB, then $0.01 per GB
- **Key Advantage**: Simple, transparent pricing with no hidden costs

### AWS (EKS)
- **Control Plane**: $0.10 per hour
- **Worker Nodes**: EC2 pricing + $0.10 per hour per node
- **Storage**: EBS pricing ($0.10 per GB per month)
- **Load Balancer**: $0.0225 per hour
- **Network**: $0.09 per GB for first 10TB
- **Key Consideration**: Complex pricing structure with many variables

### Azure (AKS)
- **Control Plane**: Free
- **Worker Nodes**: VM pricing
- **Storage**: Managed Disks pricing
- **Load Balancer**: $0.025 per hour
- **Network**: $0.087 per GB for first 10TB
- **Key Consideration**: Enterprise agreements can significantly reduce costs

### GCP (GKE)
- **Control Plane**: Free
- **Worker Nodes**: Compute Engine pricing
- **Storage**: Persistent Disk pricing
- **Load Balancer**: $0.025 per hour
- **Network**: $0.12 per GB for first 10TB
- **Key Consideration**: Sustained use discounts available

## Feature Comparison

### 1. Managed Kubernetes Features

| Feature | Civo | AWS EKS | Azure AKS | GCP GKE |
|---------|------|---------|-----------|---------|
| Control Plane Management | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Auto-scaling | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Multi-cluster Management | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Node Pools | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Windows Support | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| GPU Support | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |

### 2. Networking

| Feature | Civo | AWS EKS | Azure AKS | GCP GKE |
|---------|------|---------|-----------|---------|
| VPC Integration | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Load Balancer | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Ingress Controller | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Network Policies | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Service Mesh | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Multi-region Support | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |

### 3. Storage

| Feature | Civo | AWS EKS | Azure AKS | GCP GKE |
|---------|------|---------|-----------|---------|
| Block Storage | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| File Storage | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Object Storage | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Volume Snapshots | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| CSI Drivers | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Local Storage | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |

### 4. Security

| Feature | Civo | AWS EKS | Azure AKS | GCP GKE |
|---------|------|---------|-----------|---------|
| RBAC | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Network Policies | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Secrets Management | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Pod Security Policies | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Compliance Certifications | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Encryption at Rest | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |

## Performance Comparison

### 1. Control Plane Performance
- **Civo**: Fast deployment, minimal latency
- **AWS**: Reliable, enterprise-grade performance
- **Azure**: Consistent performance, good integration
- **GCP**: Excellent performance, low latency

### 2. Node Performance
- **Civo**: Good performance for standard workloads
- **AWS**: Extensive instance types, excellent performance
- **Azure**: Good performance, wide range of options
- **GCP**: Excellent performance, innovative features

### 3. Network Performance
- **Civo**: Good performance, simple networking
- **AWS**: Excellent performance, complex networking
- **Azure**: Good performance, enterprise networking
- **GCP**: Excellent performance, global networking

## Enterprise Features

### 1. Management and Operations
- **Civo**: Simple management, limited enterprise features
- **AWS**: Comprehensive management, extensive enterprise features
- **Azure**: Good management, strong enterprise integration
- **GCP**: Excellent management, innovative enterprise features

### 2. Monitoring and Logging
- **Civo**: Basic monitoring, third-party integration
- **AWS**: Comprehensive monitoring, CloudWatch integration
- **Azure**: Good monitoring, Azure Monitor integration
- **GCP**: Excellent monitoring, Stackdriver integration

### 3. Support and SLAs
- **Civo**: Community support, limited SLAs
- **AWS**: Comprehensive support, enterprise SLAs
- **Azure**: Good support, enterprise SLAs
- **GCP**: Excellent support, enterprise SLAs

## Use Case Recommendations

### Choose Civo if:
- You need simple, cost-effective Kubernetes
- Your workloads are standard and don't require advanced features
- You prefer transparent pricing
- You want quick deployment and easy management

### Choose AWS if:
- You need comprehensive enterprise features
- You require extensive instance types and services
- You have existing AWS infrastructure
- You need strong compliance and security features

### Choose Azure if:
- You have existing Microsoft infrastructure
- You need strong enterprise integration
- You require Windows support
- You want good balance of features and cost

### Choose GCP if:
- You need innovative features and excellent performance
- You want strong global networking
- You need excellent monitoring and management
- You prefer Google's approach to cloud computing

## Migration Considerations

### 1. Complexity
- **Civo**: Low complexity, easy migration
- **AWS**: High complexity, extensive planning needed
- **Azure**: Medium complexity, good tooling
- **GCP**: Medium complexity, good tooling

### 2. Tooling
- **Civo**: Limited tooling, third-party options
- **AWS**: Extensive tooling, AWS-specific
- **Azure**: Good tooling, Microsoft ecosystem
- **GCP**: Good tooling, Google ecosystem

### 3. Lock-in Risk
- **Civo**: Low lock-in, standard Kubernetes
- **AWS**: High lock-in, AWS-specific features
- **Azure**: Medium lock-in, Microsoft integration
- **GCP**: Medium lock-in, Google services

## Conclusion
Each provider has its strengths and is suitable for different use cases. The choice depends on your specific requirements, existing infrastructure, and long-term strategy.
