We performed a comparison between Google Kubernetes Engine and OpenShift Container Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We appreciate that it is quite easy to set up a Kubernetes cluster in Google Cloud, using the managed services within this solution."
"The solution is available across AWS, GCP and Azure and is seamless."
"GKE's plugin management and configuration sync are excellent features. The amount of data it provides is good, and I've been able to integrate it with the things I need."
"We can scale it all the way from a single zone to multiple regions around the world."
"Google Kubernetes Engine is used for orchestrating Docker containers. We have 30 or 40 customers working with this solution now. We'll probably see 10 to 15 percent growth in the number of customers using Google Kubernetes Engine in the future."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable feature is container deployment."
"The main advantage of GKE is that it is a managed service. This means that Google is responsible for managing the master node in the Kubernetes cluster system. As a result, we can focus on deploying applications to the slaves, while Google handles any updates and security patches. The fact that GKE is fully integrated into the Google ecosystem, including solutions such as BigQuery and VertexAI. This makes it easier for us to integrate these tools into our process. This integration ultimately speeds up our time to market and reduces the time and effort spent on managing infrastructure. The managed aspect of GKE allows us to simply deploy and utilize it without having to worry about the technicalities of infrastructure management."
"It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best."
"On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."
"The platform is easy to scale as it supports Windows worker node."
"Technical support is good; they are fast and reliable."
"The software is user-friendly and straightforward to use, which is favorable to a developer."
"Red Hat's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is good. It is a lightweight operating system. You don't have to worry about the security patches on the system. You can update the entire environment with security patches, which is a nice feature."
"The most valuable features are the monitoring and logging functionalities."
"OpenShift is a user-friendly container platform with a solid GUI that helps you follow what is going on and gives you an overview of all your clusters. It's more user-friendly than the Kubernetes itself. The interface helps you learn the platform and provides access to some features or specific comments."
"Some of the primary features we leverage in the platform have to do with how we manage the cluster configurations, the properties, and the auto-scalability. These are the features that definitely provide value in terms of reducing overhead for the developers."
"Google Kubernetes Engine is less stable in some highly complex deployments with many nodes."
"One of the biggest issues right now is the Kubernetes backup system. That's being handled right now by Google, but it's in beta."
"The user interface could be improved."
"The console for this solution could be improved because it is very limited."
"There is a limitation for our infrastructure. It's very complex to see in one dashboard all the components and all the behavior on performance. I am looking for some additional tools for that. If I want to check the disk or file storage, it gets complex. There should be an integrated dashboard so that we can manage everything through a single pane."
"While the GKE cluster is secure, application-level security is an essential aspect that needs to be addressed. The security provided by GKE includes the security of communication between nodes within the cluster and the basic features of Kubernetes security. However, these features may not be sufficient for the security needs of an enterprise. Additional security measures must be added to ensure adequate protection. It has become a common practice to deploy security tools within a Kubernetes cluster. It would be ideal if these tools were included as part of the package, as this is a standard requirement in the industry. Thus, application-level security should be integrated into GKE for improved security measures."
"An area in which Google Kubernetes Engine could improve is configuration."
"Their documentation is a little here and there. Sometimes, the information is not clear or updated. Their documentation should be a little bit better."
"Another thing that bugs me is that they removed the software in NFS storage. I don't understand why because this is a common type of storage. I am having problems with that, so I wish they would put it back."
"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."
"Container Platform could be improved if we could aggregate logs out of the box instead of having to do it through integrations with other products."
"The initial setup can be hard."
"It is difficult to deploy the OpenShift cluster in a bare-metal environment."
"OpenShift has certain restrictions in terms of managing the cluster when it's running on a public cloud. For example, identity and access management integration with the IM of AWS is quite difficult. It requires some open-source tools to integrate. This is one area where I always see room for improvement."
"Things are there and the documentation is there, however, there still needs to be quick guides available."
"One area for improvement is that we can't currently run Docker inside a container, as it clashes with security consents. It would be good if we could change that."
Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 7th in Container Management with 10 reviews while OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 27 reviews. Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0, while OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Google Kubernetes Engine writes "Fully Google ecosystem integrated, saves valuable time, and rapid deployment". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenShift Container Platform writes "Provides automation that speeds up our process by 30% and helps us achieve zero downtime". Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Kubernetes, Rancher Labs and Amazon Elastic Container Service, whereas OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Rancher Labs and Cisco Container Platform. See our Google Kubernetes Engine vs. OpenShift Container Platform report.
See our list of best Container Management vendors.
We monitor all Container Management 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.
