We performed a comparison between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and SUSE Linux Enterprise based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: RHEL excels in setup, integration, security updates, and application support. However, it falls short in terms of documentation, pricing, and customer support. SUSE Linux Enterprise is praised for its simplicity, flexibility, user-friendliness, and customer support. It needs improvement in GUI, pricing competitiveness, and integration.
"OpenShift is the most valuable feature because it can be used to create applications on the fly."
"The technical support is very helpful."
"The product is super easy to use."
"From a security perspective, the most valuable feature is SELinux. SELinux provides good security. It's doing a good job of protecting my real estate."
"Red Hat Enterprise Linux stands out for its stability and support, which are critical for enterprise applications in the finance sector. We don't want any downtime, so we need fast support support and quick issue resolution."
"The GUI for network adapters and built-in tools provided by RHEL, such as the Mozilla browser, have been valuable. Since they come built-in, it saves the time of having to install them, and you have everything necessary with the installation itself."
"The support and the stability are Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable areas."
"Compared to any other product, Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a stable backported solution for a long time."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the installation part...We don't face any issues related to the operating system or application."
"Out-of-the-box SLES supported all of our HBAs and hardware specific components."
"The initial setup for most modern Linux distributions is normally straightforward. Most of the common distributions use an ncurses or GUI install."
"SUSE Linux Enterprise is stable."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The main feature is that Linux is flexible to work with for most web-based applications."
"It also was very easy to setup, and offered an easy to use advanced setup option as well. This helped to create special configurations for different use cases."
"The solution offers a secure operation system."
"The solution should provide better documentation."
"The Authselect tool needs improvement. This tool is used to connect your system to an identity provider or directory service, e.g., openLDAP. There is documentation and descriptions. While there are a few use cases and examples described, it is sometimes hard to use these tools to set up the configuration that we need for our specific environment. I would like it if there was more general information about the tool, not just describing a use case. For example, here is how to do it and how to connect to some kind of openLDAP service as well as more information about when you need to configure certificate services and mutual authentication."
"The Modules feature is awesome but it could be even better."
"Having an image that includes all the necessary software and provisioning it so that subsequent updates provide the updated image, would significantly enhance the developer experience. It would be great if teams could make modifications and changes to the image, like rebasing. I think it would be an awesome feature."
"In the past and with older versions, you couldn't expand the root file system without rebooting the server or restarting the operating system. That is something that they have actually corrected now, which is great. They corrected that issue somewhere around RHEL 7."
"When there is downtime from a system admin perspective, this solution could improve how they communicate why this down time is happening."
"Red Hat Enterprise Linux's monitoring could be improved. I would like additional monitoring features, like a greater ability to monitor services and workloads running. Satellite can provide centralized monitoring of subscriptions and deployments. You can build a monitoring console, but there is no native monitoring."
"The solution's modules feature could be better."
"We previously had trouble integrating Autodesk with the SUSE Manager, but the issue was resolved."
"Compared with the competition, of late actually, the solution has increased its pricing tremendously."
"They should provide chatbot support for customers to open the troubleshooting cases directly."
"The solution could be more stable."
"In the next release it would be nice to see more integration and better automation of processses."
"If you want to do something simple like changing an IP number, you have to be quite aware of all the configuration files where you will change that."
"All distributions of Linux could use some improvement."
"The free version sometimes has security holes."
More Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is ranked 1st in Operating Systems (OS) for Business with 167 reviews while SUSE Linux Enterprise is ranked 6th in Operating Systems (OS) for Business with 26 reviews. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is rated 8.8, while SUSE Linux Enterprise is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) writes "Highly stable, good knowledge base, and reasonable price". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SUSE Linux Enterprise writes "Stable product compatible with multiple cloud service providers ". Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is most compared with Windows Server, Ubuntu Linux, Windows 10, CentOS and Oracle Linux, whereas SUSE Linux Enterprise is most compared with Ubuntu Linux, openSUSE Leap, Oracle Linux, CentOS and Rocky Linux. See our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) vs. SUSE Linux Enterprise report.
See our list of best Operating Systems (OS) for Business vendors.
We monitor all Operating Systems (OS) for Business 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.