We performed a comparison between Heroku and OpenShift based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two PaaS Clouds solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of Heroku is the continuous integration and applications it provides."
"It's easy to push a change and to deploy new things."
"It is easy to deploy applications, and we don't need to bother about software updates on the server. We don't need to bother about machines, servers, and hardware. We only need to care about the system and functionality that we need or want to develop. They take care of everything else. It provides high availability. It is a pretty good solution that provides everything that we need. It has everything that we need to run our applications. We have many different applications, and we generate three million bills for a company in Brazil. We see more than a billion requests per day in another application. Everything works just fine, and it is very good."
"Valuable for us was the fast deployment. This means the time to market is improved without pain for developers."
"We use Heroku to run generic data. We also use it for our customer development environment. It helps us to build and test websites."
"What I found most valuable about this solution is that it's easy to use and integrate with GitHub actions."
"I like the tool's scalability, CLI, and dashboards."
"Thanks to Heroku, we don't need to do as much direct management in AWS."
"Its security is most valuable. It's by default secure, which is very important."
"Self-provisioning support saves a lot of time and unnecessary work from the system administrator who can use this time to run and monitor the infrastructure. For the developer, this means less time waiting for the provisioning and excellent flexibility for development, testing, and production. Also, in such systems it is easy for developers to monitor applications even after deployment."
"I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones."
"Overall, the solution's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is excellent."
"We are able to operate client’s platform without downtime during security patch management each month and provide a good SLA (as scalability for applications is processed during heavy client website load, automatically)."
"We want to build a solution that can be deployable to any cloud because of client requirements and OpenShift allows us to do this."
"Valuable features include auto-recreate of pod if pod fails; fast rollback, with one click, to previous version."
"The initial setup is simple, and OpenShift is open-source, so it's easy to install on any cloud platform."
"Heroku should increase its slug size limits."
"They could flesh out some of their analytics a little more."
"We have to do daily restarts of some processes, which is annoying, and the support for custom CI could be better."
"I improved the application performance by monitoring and adjusting the cleaner configuration to help set better lightweight limits on containers that run the app instances."
"Heroku had an authentication problem a few months ago, but they solved it."
"I think this solution would be improved if free demos were available indefinitely."
"Heroku doesn't support Docker images on the CI infrastructure."
"We don't find the pipelines intuitive. The user experience could be better. Having to set up multiple apps, then a pipeline, seems like an overkill on the amount of work to do."
"One glaring flaw is how OpenShift handles operators. Sometimes operators are forced to go into a particular namespace. When you do that, OpenShift creates an installation plan for everything in that namespace. These operators may be completely separate from each other and have nothing to do with each other, but now they are tied at the hip. You can't upgrade one without upgrading all of them. That's a huge mistake and highly problematic."
"The metrics in OpenShift can use improvement."
"There have been some issues with security, in particular, that we had to address. At times they make it “clunky." I am quite confident these parameters will appear in the next releases. They have been reported as bugs and are actually in process."
"This is a fairly expensive solution."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"Room for improvement is around the offerings that come as a bundle with the container platform. The packaging of the platform should be done such that customers do not have to purchase additional licenses."
"The area for improvement is mostly in support for legacy applications."
"The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications... They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore."
Heroku is ranked 13th in PaaS Clouds with 28 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Heroku is rated 8.4, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Heroku writes "Used for server deployment and provides auto maintenance of databases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenShift writes "Provides us with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints". Heroku is most compared with Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Google App Engine, Pivotal Cloud Foundry and Amazon Lightsail, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and SUSE Cloud Application Platform. See our Heroku vs. OpenShift report.
See our list of best PaaS Clouds vendors.
We monitor all PaaS Clouds reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.