We performed a comparison between Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and OpenShift based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."Its support team resolves technical issues accurately."
"The most valuable features of AKS are scalability, deployability, and automation."
"We find the container orchestration tool that this solution provides to be very valuable."
"It is easy to maintain the solution."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the diagnostic service."
"The serverless capability and auto scale feature are the most valuable."
"I found the Helm deployment feature of the solution valuable."
"We like how easy it is to create the resources in this solution, thanks to how easy the UI is to use."
"The most valuable feature is the high availability for the applications."
"The virtualization of my APIs means I no longer have to pay VMware large amounts of money to only run in-house solutions."
"Valuable features include auto-recreate of pod if pod fails; fast rollback, with one click, to previous version."
"This solution helps us to account for peak seasons involving higher demand than usual. It also gives us confidence in the security of our overall systems."
"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)."
"The stability has been good."
"OpenShift facilitates DevOps practices and improves CI/CD workflows in terms of stability compared to Jenkins."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"The initial setup is complex."
"It can be tough to access the servers when onboarding."
"There is room for improvement in automation processes, as well."
"Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is not up to optimal standards when it comes to capturing logs and visualization."
"It just loses out because you have less access to it programmatically, with less technical or customizable access."
"The solution should improve its UI and cost."
"Its integration functions could be enhanced."
"The initial setup of AKS is complicated. The setup depends on the cluster, nodes, and lots of other things. There are also lots of extremely critical small devices. Moreover, you will have to pay them even while setting up the solution. It is not like you setup first and then pay for it."
"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."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"We want to see better alerting, especially in critical situations requiring immediate intervention. Until we go to the dashboard, it can be challenging to quickly recognize that there's an issue for us to deal with. Therefore, a popup of the event or a tweaked GUI to catch our attention when it's alerting would be a welcome change. Everything else is good. We don't need any additional features. From the operations perspective, as an administrator, there is nothing concerning."
"The product’s integration with Windows containers and other third-party products needs improvement."
"If we can have a GUI-based configuration with better flexibility then it will be great."
"OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets."
"Not a ten because it's not a standard solution and the endpoint protection user has to prepare with documentation or have training from other people. It's not easy to start because it's not like other solutions."
"OpenShift's storage management could be better."
More Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is ranked 13th in Container Security with 32 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is rated 8.2, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) writes "Decreases administrative burdens and costs, has good diagnostic tools, and is easy to deploy". 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". Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, SUSE Rancher, Qualys VMDR, Tenable.io Container Security and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI).
We monitor all Container Security 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.