Comparison
Cilium vs Google Cloud Service Mesh
On the evidence we track, Cilium leads this comparison with a composite score of 74/100. Scores are only directly comparable because these tools share a category; the full breakdown and every source is below.
Capabilities
Feature-by-feature on the axes that matter for service mesh. “-” means undocumented, not absent.
| Capability | Cilium | Google Cloud Service Mesh |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | ||
| Data plane | Sidecarless (eBPF) | Sidecar |
| Proxy | eBPF | Envoy |
| Security | ||
| Automatic mutual TLS | - | ✓ |
| SPIFFE / SPIRE identity | - | - |
| Traffic | ||
| Traffic splitting / canary | - | ✓ |
| Fault injection / resilience | - | ✓ |
| Scale | ||
| Multi-cluster federation | ✓ | - |
| Portability | ||
| VM support (beyond Kubernetes) | - | ✓ |
| Observability | ||
| Built-in observability | ✓ | ✓ |
| Standards | ||
| Gateway API / GAMMA support | ✓ | - |
| Extensibility | ||
| WASM extensibility | - | - |
| Compliance | ||
| FIPS mode | - | - |
| Ecosystem | ||
| CNCF maturity | Graduated | - |
| Ops | ||
| Commercial support / enterprise edition | ✓ | ✓ |
Comparison generated from independently-sourced facts. Every value links to its source and retrieval date. See the method.