Network Connectivity Center

Name: Network Connectivity Center
Brand: Google

Network Connectivity Center is Google Cloud’s centralized hub-and-spoke connectivity management layer that connects VPCs, VPN/Interconnect, and third-party router appliances to provide a control plane that reduces pairwise connectivity objects and manages dynamic route exchange.

Est 1998|Valuation $4081.3B|Raised $26.1M

LinkedIn 41.9M|Website|Web traffic 3.3M|FTEs 198,933|HQ Mountain View, California, US

MarketsCloud Infrastructure Providers (IaaS/PaaS)Enterprise Networking Cloud Infrastructure Providers (IaaS/PaaS)

01Competitive Landscape

| Aspect | Network Connectivity Center (Google) | AWS Cloud WAN | Azure Virtual WAN | |---|---|---|---| | Starting Price | Usage-based; vendor-published metered charges based on spoke and data-processing characteristics | Usage-based; vendor-published pricing model for Cloud WAN | Usage-based; pricing varies by hub type/features; vendor provides pricing guidance and documentation | | Primary Use Case | Google Cloud-centric hybrid WAN patterns; connecting VPN/Interconnect/router appliances into a managed hub-and-spoke | AWS-centric global WAN orchestration across Regions/accounts with AWS-native integration | Azure-centric branch + VPN/ER + VNet transit patterns with Azure-native integration | | Key Strength | Integration with Google Cloud networking stack; hub-and-spoke orchestration; partner router/SD-WAN patterns | Native AWS WAN orchestration and routing constructs at AWS scale; broad AWS ecosystem | Integration with Azure networking and security services | | Key Weakness | Limited independent benchmarking in public forums; vendor metered components can be significant; route scale and quotas may constrain designs | Complexity for hybrid designs; costs depend on traffic and attachments | Feature tiers can be complex; costs depend on hubs, routing, and traffic | - Direct competitors and key differentiators - Hyperscaler-native WAN products - AWS Cloud WAN and Azure Virtual WAN are conceptual peers. - Differentiation typically depends on: - Where workloads are hosted (AWS vs Azure vs GCP) - Which hybrid edge strategy is used (SD-WAN vendor, Interconnect/ExpressRoute/Direct Connect) - Operational toolchain and team skills - Third-party controllers (Aviatrix) - Aviatrix provides a multi-cloud networking control plane intended to normalize constructs across providers and add operational tooling. - Tradeoff: additional licensing and deployment/operations overhead versus using cloud-native services. - Connectivity fabrics (Megaport) - Megaport can be complementary (cloud on-ramp connectivity) or an alternative for certain interconnect patterns. - Pricing comparison (high level) - NCC - Usage-based billing with vendor-published metered components for spoke capacity and data processing that transits NCC. - AWS Cloud WAN - Pricing depends on network edges, attachments, and traffic; vendor publishes pricing guidance. - Azure Virtual WAN - Pricing depends on scenario and selected components; vendor publishes pricing guidance and conceptual docs. - Customer testimonials comparing products to competitors - Limited direct first-person comparisons between NCC and specific competitors were found in accessible sources. - Community discussions indicate practitioners consider native options and third-party products, but often lack validated outcome metrics. - Adoption trends - Market commentary positioned NCC as part of an industry trend of cloud providers expanding software networking capabilities for hybrid and multicloud connectivity. - No reliable public customer count for NCC was identified in the reviewed sources.

01Competitive Landscape

Aspect	Network Connectivity Center (Google)	AWS Cloud WAN	Azure Virtual WAN
Starting Price	Usage-based; vendor-published metered charges based on spoke and data-processing characteristics	Usage-based; vendor-published pricing model for Cloud WAN	Usage-based; pricing varies by hub type/features; vendor provides pricing guidance and documentation
Primary Use Case	Google Cloud-centric hybrid WAN patterns; connecting VPN/Interconnect/router appliances into a managed hub-and-spoke	AWS-centric global WAN orchestration across Regions/accounts with AWS-native integration	Azure-centric branch + VPN/ER + VNet transit patterns with Azure-native integration
Key Strength	Integration with Google Cloud networking stack; hub-and-spoke orchestration; partner router/SD-WAN patterns	Native AWS WAN orchestration and routing constructs at AWS scale; broad AWS ecosystem	Integration with Azure networking and security services
Key Weakness	Limited independent benchmarking in public forums; vendor metered components can be significant; route scale and quotas may constrain designs	Complexity for hybrid designs; costs depend on traffic and attachments	Feature tiers can be complex; costs depend on hubs, routing, and traffic

Direct competitors and key differentiators
- Hyperscaler-native WAN products
  - AWS Cloud WAN and Azure Virtual WAN are conceptual peers.
  - Differentiation typically depends on:
    - Where workloads are hosted (AWS vs Azure vs GCP)
    - Which hybrid edge strategy is used (SD-WAN vendor, Interconnect/ExpressRoute/Direct Connect)
    - Operational toolchain and team skills
- Third-party controllers (Aviatrix)
  - Aviatrix provides a multi-cloud networking control plane intended to normalize constructs across providers and add operational tooling.
  - Tradeoff: additional licensing and deployment/operations overhead versus using cloud-native services.
- Connectivity fabrics (Megaport)
  - Megaport can be complementary (cloud on-ramp connectivity) or an alternative for certain interconnect patterns.
Pricing comparison (high level)
- NCC
  - Usage-based billing with vendor-published metered components for spoke capacity and data processing that transits NCC.
- AWS Cloud WAN
  - Pricing depends on network edges, attachments, and traffic; vendor publishes pricing guidance.
- Azure Virtual WAN
  - Pricing depends on scenario and selected components; vendor publishes pricing guidance and conceptual docs.
Customer testimonials comparing products to competitors
- Limited direct first-person comparisons between NCC and specific competitors were found in accessible sources.
- Community discussions indicate practitioners consider native options and third-party products, but often lack validated outcome metrics.
Adoption trends
- Market commentary positioned NCC as part of an industry trend of cloud providers expanding software networking capabilities for hybrid and multicloud connectivity.
- No reliable public customer count for NCC was identified in the reviewed sources.

Aspect

Network Connectivity Center (Google)

AWS Cloud WAN

Azure Virtual WAN

Starting Price

Usage-based; vendor-published metered charges based on spoke and data-processing characteristics

Usage-based; vendor-published pricing model for Cloud WAN

Usage-based; pricing varies by hub type/features; vendor provides pricing guidance and documentation

Primary Use Case

Google Cloud-centric hybrid WAN patterns; connecting VPN/Interconnect/router appliances into a managed hub-and-spoke

AWS-centric global WAN orchestration across Regions/accounts with AWS-native integration

Azure-centric branch + VPN/ER + VNet transit patterns with Azure-native integration

Key Strength

Integration with Google Cloud networking stack; hub-and-spoke orchestration; partner router/SD-WAN patterns

Native AWS WAN orchestration and routing constructs at AWS scale; broad AWS ecosystem

Integration with Azure networking and security services

Key Weakness

Limited independent benchmarking in public forums; vendor metered components can be significant; route scale and quotas may constrain designs

Complexity for hybrid designs; costs depend on traffic and attachments

Feature tiers can be complex; costs depend on hubs, routing, and traffic