Google Container Engine vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform comparison

"The tool is very powerful, scalable, and easy to manage. Its autoscaling features helped us save costs."

"Everything is packaged into OpenShift Container Platform."

"Technical support is good; they are fast and reliable."

"The product is stable, reliable, and easy to use, from a well-known company, has a large volume handling capacity, and more and more organizations are moving to OpenShift."

"The best feature is the management for the port life cycle, which automatically recycles, pulls, and scales up and down based on needs and requests."

"It’s user-friendly."

"The platform is easy to scale as it supports Windows worker node."

"OpenShift provides tools that tell me everything I have on a container, and I can make it on-premise or on a cloud infrastructure."

"The banking transactions, inquiries, and account opening have been the most valuable."

"Google Container Engine needs to be able to manage network products."

"With the recent trend of cloud-native, fully managed serverless services, I don't see much documentation about how a customer should move from on-prem to the cloud, or what is the best way to do a lift-and-shift. Even if you are on AWS OCP, which is self-managed infra services, and you want to use the ROSA managed services, what is the best way to achieve that migration? I don't see documentation for these kinds of use cases from Red Hat."

"The product's interface is a bit buggy."

"My impression is that this solution is pretty expensive so I think the pricing plan could improve."

"Things are there and the documentation is there, however, there still needs to be quick guides available."

"The product could benefit from additional operators and tools integrated with OpenShift."

"The product's setup process could be easier."

"Whenever we onboard or deploy services that talk to Oracle Database, they take a lot of time to become active and serve the incoming request, so it would be good to see some improvement here. This could be an OpenShift issue or an internal network problem within our organization."

"From a networking perspective, the routing capability can be matured further. OpenShift doesn't handle restrictions on what kind of IPs are allowed, who can access them, and who cannot access them. So it is a simple matter of just using it with adequate network access, at the network level."

"The tool's pricing is medium."

"The pricing is expensive for licensing."

"It depends on who you're talking to. For a large corporation, it is acceptable, other than the significant infrastructure requirements. For a small organization, it is in no way suitable, and we'd go for Amazon's container solution."

"The price is slightly on the higher side. It is something that can be worked on because most of the businesses now have margins."

"The product pricing is competitive and structured around vCPU subscriptions, aligning with our application requirements."

"The pricing and licensing are handled on an upper management level, and I'm not involved in that, but I understand the solution to be somewhat pricey."

"We currently have an annual license renewal."

"The product is expensive."

"It largely depends on how much money they earn from the application being deployed; you don't normally deploy an app just for the purpose of having it. You must constantly look into your revenue and how much you spend every container, minute, or hour of how much it is working."