Feature Parity Matrix: GCP vs AWS

This matrix provides a detailed comparison of feature parity between GCP and AWS modules in Implementation Studio.

Module Parity

Core Infrastructure Modules

Module	GCP	AWS	Parity Status	Notes
Kubernetes Cluster	✅ gke-cluster	✅ eks-cluster	✅ Complete	Both support standard deployments
VPC (Standard)	✅ vpc-standard	✅ vpc	✅ Complete	Both support public/private subnets
VPC (Private)	✅ vpc-private	✅ vpc-private	✅ Complete	Both support fully private networks
Container Registry	✅ artifact-registry	✅ ecr	✅ Complete	Both support scanning and lifecycle
Network Security	✅ firewall-rules	✅ security-groups	✅ Complete	Different models, equivalent functionality
Database	✅ Cloud SQL (Terraform)	✅ rds	✅ Complete	Both support PostgreSQL/MySQL
Database Proxy	✅ Cloud SQL Proxy (K8s)	✅ RDS Proxy (managed)	⚠️ Different	Different deployment models

Feature Comparison

Kubernetes Cluster Module

Feature	GCP gke-cluster	AWS eks-cluster	Parity
Cluster Creation	✅	✅	✅
Node Pools/Groups	✅	✅	✅
Auto-scaling	✅	✅	✅
Private Endpoint	✅	✅	✅
Network Policies	✅	✅	✅
Workload Identity/IRSA	✅	✅	✅
Encryption	✅	✅	✅
Logging	✅	✅	✅
Monitoring	✅	✅	✅
Control Plane Cost	Free	$0.10/hour	⚠️ Different

VPC Module

Feature	GCP vpc-standard	AWS vpc	Parity
VPC Creation	✅	✅	✅
Public Subnets	✅	✅	✅
Private Subnets	✅	✅	✅
Internet Gateway	✅	✅	✅
NAT Gateway	✅	✅	✅
Route Tables	✅	✅	✅
Flow Logs	✅	✅	✅
Subnet Type	Regional	Zonal	⚠️ Different
Private Service Access	✅ Private Google Access	✅ VPC Endpoints	⚠️ Different

Container Registry Module

Feature	GCP artifact-registry	AWS ecr	Parity
Repository Creation	✅	✅	✅
Image Scanning	✅	✅	✅
Lifecycle Policies	✅	✅	✅
IAM Integration	✅	✅	✅
Multi-Region	✅	❌	⚠️ Different
Pricing	$0.10/GB/month	$0.10/GB/month	✅ Same

Network Security Module

Feature	GCP firewall-rules	AWS security-groups	Parity
Ingress Rules	✅	✅	✅
Egress Rules	✅	✅	✅
Deny Rules	✅	❌ (implicit)	⚠️ Different
Tag/Group Targeting	✅	✅	✅
Priorities	✅	❌	⚠️ Different
Scope	Network-level	Instance-level	⚠️ Different

Database Module

Feature	GCP Cloud SQL	AWS rds	Parity
PostgreSQL	✅	✅	✅
MySQL	✅	✅	✅
Private IP	✅	✅	✅
Backup	✅	✅	✅
Encryption	✅	✅	✅
High Availability	✅	✅	✅
Proxy Service	Cloud SQL Proxy (pod)	RDS Proxy (managed)	⚠️ Different
Connection Pooling	❌ (external)	✅ (built-in)	⚠️ Different

Lab Parity

Multi-Cloud Labs

Lab	GCP Support	AWS Support	Kind Support	Status
Lab 01: Standard Deployment	✅	✅	❌	✅ Complete
Lab 02: Air-Gapped	❌	❌	✅	✅ Complete (Kind-only)
Lab 03: Private Network	✅	✅	❌	✅ Complete
Lab 04: Firewall-Restricted	✅	✅	❌	✅ Complete
Lab 05: POC Sprint	✅	✅	✅	✅ Complete
Lab 06: Multi-Tenant	✅	✅	✅	✅ Complete
Lab 07: Integration Patterns	✅	✅	❌	✅ Complete
Lab 08: Handoff & Runbooks	✅	✅	✅	✅ Complete (cloud-agnostic)
Lab 09: Troubleshooting	✅	✅	✅	✅ Complete (cloud-agnostic)

Lab Feature Parity

Lab 01: Standard Deployment

Feature	GCP	AWS	Parity
Cluster Deployment	✅ GKE	✅ EKS	✅
VPC Setup	✅	✅	✅
Container Registry	✅ Artifact Registry	✅ ECR	✅
Ingress	✅	✅	✅
Argo Workflows	✅	✅	✅

Lab 03: Private Network

Feature	GCP	AWS	Parity
Private VPC	✅	✅	✅
Private Cluster	✅	✅	✅
Bastion Access	✅ gcloud compute ssh	✅ SSM/SSH	⚠️ Different
Internal Load Balancer	✅	✅	✅
VPC Endpoints	✅ Private Service Connect	✅ VPC Endpoints	⚠️ Different

Lab 04: Firewall-Restricted

Feature	GCP	AWS	Parity
Strict Egress	✅ Firewall Rules	✅ Security Groups	⚠️ Different
Proxy Server	✅ Squid on VM	✅ Squid on EC2	✅
Network Policies	✅	✅	✅
Proxy Configuration	✅	✅	✅

Lab 07: Integration Patterns

Feature	GCP	AWS	Parity
Database	✅ Cloud SQL	✅ RDS	✅
Database Proxy	✅ Cloud SQL Proxy	✅ RDS Proxy	⚠️ Different
Authentication	✅ OAuth2 Proxy	✅ OAuth2 Proxy	✅ (cloud-agnostic)
API Gateway	✅ Kong	✅ Kong	✅ (cloud-agnostic)

Feature Gaps

GCP-Only Features

1. Private Google Access

   • No AWS equivalent (use VPC endpoints instead)
   • Impact: Low (workaround available)

2. Regional Subnets

   • AWS uses zonal subnets
   • Impact: Low (different design, same functionality)

3. Free Control Plane

   • AWS charges $0.10/hour
   • Impact: Medium (cost difference)

AWS-Only Features

1. RDS Proxy Connection Pooling

   • GCP requires external pooler (PgBouncer)
   • Impact: Medium (GCP workaround available)

2. Automatic Secrets Rotation (RDS Proxy)

   • GCP requires manual rotation
   • Impact: Low (manual rotation works)

3. VPC Endpoints for All Services

   • GCP uses Private Service Connect
   • Impact: Low (both provide private access)

Parity Assessment

✅ Complete Parity (100%)

• Kubernetes Cluster Deployment - Both fully support
• VPC Networking - Both fully support (different designs)
• Container Registry - Both fully support
• Basic Security - Both fully support (different models)
• Database Services - Both fully support

⚠️ Functional Parity (Different Implementation)

• Network Security - Different models, same functionality
• Private Cluster Access - Different methods, same result
• Database Proxy - Different deployment, same functionality
• Authentication - Different mechanisms, same result

❌ Feature Gaps

• Multi-Region Container Registry - GCP only
• Free Control Plane - GCP only
• Built-in Connection Pooling - AWS only (RDS Proxy)
• Automatic Secrets Rotation - AWS only (with RDS Proxy)

Recommendations

For New Deployments

Choose GCP if:

• Cost is primary concern (free control plane)
• Simpler architecture preferred
• Multi-region registry needed
• Google Workspace integration needed

Choose AWS if:

• Connection pooling critical (RDS Proxy)
• Automatic secrets rotation needed
• Existing AWS infrastructure
• Enterprise-scale requirements

For Existing Deployments

Stay with Current Provider if:

• Migration cost > benefit
• Team expertise in current provider
• No compelling reason to switch
• Integration dependencies

Consider Migration if:

• Cost savings significant
• Feature requirements change
• Compliance requirements
• Strategic business decision

Maintenance Considerations

Keeping Parity

Best Practices:

1. Document Differences - Clearly explain why features differ
2. Maintain Feature Lists - Keep this matrix updated
3. Test Both Paths - Validate both providers regularly
4. Update Together - When adding features, add to both

Challenges:

1. Different Release Cycles - GCP and AWS update independently
2. Feature Velocity - One provider may add features faster
3. Testing Burden - Must test both providers
4. Documentation - Must document both paths

Future Enhancements

Potential Additions

1. Cost Comparison Tool - Automated cost estimation
2. Migration Automation - Scripts to automate migration
3. Feature Request Tracking - Track parity gaps
4. Provider-Specific Guides - Deep dives into each provider

---

Last Updated: January 2026
Maintained By: Implementation Studio Team