We performed a comparison between Red Hat OpenShift and VMware Tanzu Application Service 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 stability has been good."
"The solution provides a lot of flexibility to the application team for running their applications in the container platform, without needing to monitor the entire infrastructure all the time. It automatically scales and automatically self-heals. There is also a mechanism to alert the team in case it is over-committing or overutilizing the application."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the security context constraint (SCC). The solution’s security throughout the stack is good. And security context constraints provide port-level security. It's a granular level of control, where you can give privileges to certain users to work on certain applications."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the containers."
"The developers seem to like the source-to-image feature. That makes it easy for them to deploy an application from code into containers, so they don't have to think about things. They take it straight from their code into a containerized application. If you don't have OpenShift, you have to build the container and then deploy the container to, say, EKS or something like that."
"Key features are WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure and the git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure."
"Its security is most valuable. It's by default secure, which is very important."
"We want to build a solution that can be deployable to any cloud because of client requirements and OpenShift allows us to do this."
"There are a lot of services available in VMware Tanzu Application Service, such as databases and application servers. You have everything you need in one application and you do not need to search outside of the solution."
"Tanzu is easy to upgrade and scale, whether we're talking about horizontal or vertical scaling. It is as smooth as possible without any downtime. The platform maintenance, upgrading, and operations part is very smooth."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to check the flow of all the different variants within our applications."
"The solution is integrated very well with a lot of other systems. Also, its GUI is very good."
"It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory."
"The interface could be simplified a bit more."
"Documentation and technical support could be improved. The product is good, but when we raise a case with support—say we are having an image issue—the support is not really up to the mark. It is difficult to get support... When we raise a case, their support people will hesitate to get on a call or a screen-sharing session. That is a major drawback when it comes to OpenShift."
"OpenShift could improve by providing the ability to integrate with public cloud platforms. This way we can easily use the services that these platforms offer. For instance, Amazon AWS. However, all the three major hyper-scalers solutions offer excellent DevOps and CI/CD tooling. If there was an easy way to integrate with them it would be beneficial. We need a way to easily integrate with the monitoring and dashboard services that they provide."
"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 solution could be improved by offering best practices on standardization and additional guidance on how to use this solution."
"I want easier node management and more user-friendly scripts for installing master and worker nodes."
"I think that OpenShift has too many commands for running services from the CLI, and the configuration files are a little complicated."
"The solution's initial setup process was complex...The solution could benefit from improved customization and visibility for its users."
"The solution is currently focused on VMware infrastructure and I would like to see more options made available."
"The implementation is not easy, it is very complex and can take a day or two to complete."
"Tanzu could provide more granular control over whatever networking is being done on the containers. I would also like to see a slightly more detailed view of application-level tracing. I'm referring to the connections between different microservices. If they added a service-matching feature, that would be helpful for the customers to build or be more effective."
More VMware Tanzu Application Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 54 reviews while VMware Tanzu Application Service is ranked 13th in PaaS Clouds with 4 reviews. Red Hat OpenShift is rated 8.4, while VMware Tanzu Application Service is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Red Hat OpenShift writes "Provides us with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Tanzu Application Service writes "A solution with a good GUI and the ability to integrate with other systems seamlessly". Red Hat OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Azure Red Hat OpenShift, whereas VMware Tanzu Application Service is most compared with Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Google Cloud and Cloud Foundry. See our Red Hat OpenShift vs. VMware Tanzu Application Service 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.