Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CloudSphere vs Red Hat OpenShift comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

CloudSphere
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (17th), Cloud Management (41st)
Red Hat OpenShift
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
PaaS Clouds (3rd), Server Virtualization Software (11th), Container Management (10th), Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms (5th), Agile and DevOps Services (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Cloud Infrastructure and Tools solutions, they serve different purposes. CloudSphere is designed for Cloud Migration and holds a mindshare of 2.9%, up 0.9% compared to last year.
Red Hat OpenShift, on the other hand, focuses on Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms, holds 7.0% mindshare, up 1.0% since last year.
Cloud Migration Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
CloudSphere2.9%
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP7.4%
Azure NetApp Files7.4%
Other82.3%
Cloud Migration
Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Red Hat OpenShift7.0%
Azure Stack19.2%
VMware Cloud Foundation18.3%
Other55.5%
Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

Muhammad Imran Ali Jan - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Executive IT Infrastructure at Wateen Telecom (pvt.)
A highly scalable and stable tool that provides good technical support and enables users to manage and optimize resources
The product was handed over to us with pre-installed configurations. We just mounted our server in the rack and enabled the connectivity. The initial setup was quite easy to manage. We are using a private cloud to optimize our hospital management system. We have discussed with the vendor the solution's scalability from private to public cloud for our future needs. All the infrastructure was installed within 15 days.
Pratul Shukla - PeerSpot reviewer
Vice President at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Adopting a flexible and efficient approach with noticeable improvements in operational costs and continued challenges in job management
Currently, one of the biggest challenges we face is with services and jobs. For spawning batches, although it has crons, it is not easy to integrate with enterprise systems such as Autosys. The entire company uses Autosys, but we are not able to integrate it effectively. We need intermediate servers to run OC utility commands and initiate the cron job. We have to do a lot of modifications to ensure our batches work properly. With physical or virtual servers, even in AWS, we are able to write and manage multiple jobs. Managing batches in Red Hat OpenShift has been a significant challenge. Integrating third parties is a challenge with Red Hat OpenShift. For example, with Elasticsearch, onboarding itself was difficult, running file beats and dealing with routing issues. It is not straightforward, especially since we have some components in AWS as. AWS has many capabilities that come out of the box and are easier to work with compared to Red Hat OpenShift. Red Hat OpenShift's biggest disadvantage is they do not provide any private cloud setup where we can host on our site using their services. The main reason we went with Red Hat OpenShift was because it is a private cloud, and we have regulatory requirements that prevent us from using public cloud.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We do not need to install any appliances or any agents."
"Provides multiple kinds of services for managing the clouds of multiple customers."
"The product is helpful for the management, optimization, and utilization of resources."
"When I started using CloudSphere, it wasn't mature, and it had multiple issues. For example, my team experienced server issues while using the solution, but recently, I noticed how much CloudSphere has improved. There used to be some latency issues with CloudSphere. It even gave error messages in the past when you select an option such as "the web server is not responding", but it has improved a lot, and now I don't get any errors from CloudSphere. What I like best about CloudSphere is that it has a lot of beneficial features, and it has a single pane for managing multi-cloud environments, which I find very helpful, and it's the main benefit you can get from CloudSphere."
"For the customers I work with, it provides flexibility as far as storage is concerned, so it's security and access."
"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."
"It has features that enhance security, ease of deployment, and service exposure compared to Kubernetes."
"The solution offers ease with which we can define how to run applications and configure them. It's much more convenient than creating a virtual machine and configuring application servers, making the process faster and simpler."
"Excellent GUI support, so one does not need to use the command line client for almost any tasks. Great support for building images directly from Git repositories with hooks."
"Its security is most valuable. It's by default secure, which is very important."
"What I like best about OpenShift is that it can reduce some of the costs of having multiple applications because you can just move them into small container applications. For example, applications don't need to run for twenty days, only to be used up by Monday. Through OpenShift, you can move some of the small applications into any cloud. I also find the design of OpenShift good."
"There is a quick deployment of the application, and we can scale out efficiently."
 

Cons

"The main issue I experienced from CloudSphere was recently resolved, but an area for improvement in the solution is that it lacks the functionality of migrating resources from one public cloud to another. If CloudSphere could provide that functionality, that would be very beneficial to users and companies."
"The solution must have a single management console for the resources and VMs."
"When we start the scanning of, for example, 500 servers, it will not handle the scan. We need to differentiate the jobs - for example, one job for 100 servers, a second job for another 100 servers, et cetera."
"The next feature I would like to have full disclosure of what's being done with the data."
"There are quite a number of services that can't be deployed using CloudSphere."
"The GUI could have more capabilities, particularly around virtualization. Some features are missing, such as storage migrations, when compared with VMware."
"If we can have a GUI-based configuration with better flexibility then it will be great."
"I had to frequently upgrade my cluster due to OpenShift's rolling updates every six months, which I found to be excessive."
"The solution needs to support the new features in Kubernetes more quickly."
"Some of the storage services and integrations with third-party tools should be made possible."
"The platform's documentation could be more comprehensive to cover the full spectrum of user needs. Sometimes, achieving specific goals is challenging due to a lack of detailed guidance."
"Support could improve with faster response times, as responses are currently quite slow."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is very expensive."
"It depends on how that model will be used. It might be anywhere between $4 and $15 per license per month. It’s less expensive than other options."
"The product's support is expensive. I would rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten."
"Depending on the extent of the product use, licenses are available for a range of time periods, and are renewable at the end of the period."
"We are currently using the open version, OKD. We plan to get the enterprise version in the future."
"It's expensive. It may be cheaper to invest in building Vanilla Kubernetes, especially if security is not the number one motivation or requirement. Of course, that's difficult, and in some business areas, such as banking, that's not something you can put as a second priority. In other situations, a Vanilla Kubernetes with a sufficiently strong team can be cheaper and almost as effective."
"We use the license-free version of Red Hat Openshift but we pay for the support."
"The model of pricing and buying licences is quite rigid. We are in the process of negotiating on demand pricing which will help us take advantage of the cloud as a whole."
"This solution is fairly expensive but comes at an average cost compared to other solutions in the market."
"The licensing cost for OpenShift is expensive when compared to other products. RedHat also charges you additional costs apart from the standard licensing fees."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Migration solutions are best for your needs.
879,425 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Logistics Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Healthcare Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise41
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does OpenShift compare with Amazon AWS?
Open Shift makes managing infrastructure easy because of self-healing and automatic scaling. There is also a wonderful dashboard mechanism to alert us in case the application is over-committing or ...
Which would you recommend - Pivotal Cloud Foundry or OpenShift?
Pivotal Cloud Foundry is a cloud-native application platform to simplify app delivery. It is efficient and effective. The best feature is how easy it is to handle external services such as database...
What do you like most about OpenShift?
OpenShift facilitates DevOps practices and improves CI/CD workflows in terms of stability compared to Jenkins.
 

Also Known As

HyperCloud
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Affymetrix, Bell Helicopter, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, Porterville Unified School District, Interact for Health, VirtueCom, Warren Memorial Hospital, Front Porch, RMH Group, Meyers Nave, Intraworks, Information Technology, ETTE, Clackamas Community College
UPS, Cathay Pacific, Hilton
Find out what your peers are saying about Hewlett Packard Enterprise, NetApp, Nasuni and others in Cloud Migration. Updated: December 2025.
879,425 professionals have used our research since 2012.