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."
"We used automation for the initial setup. It was okay. So it wasn't too complex."
"The logs are important for detecting problems in our clusters."
"I am impressed with the product's output scaling."
"Stability is perfect for me."
"The deployment of the cluster is very easy."
"Stability-wise, this solution is really good."
"Before using this solution, it was a lot of manual tasks and a lot of people participated in the process."
"On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."
"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 most valuable feature is that the solution can be deployed in the cloud which removes the expense of a server."
"I have found the ability to scale up is most valuable."
"Autoscaling is an excellent feature that makes it very simple to scale our applications as required."
"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."
"It’s user-friendly."
"The usability and the developer experience. The platform has a centralized consultant that is easy to use for our development, operations and security teams."
"It needs to support load balancing."
"The console for this solution could be improved because it is very limited."
"Our critique is that we have to do too much work to get the cluster production-ready."
"I think that security is an important point, and there should be additional features for the evaluation of data in containers that will create a more secure environment for usage in multi-parent models."
"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."
"I use the Firebase tool with GKE and it would be helpful if the solution can give notifications when we reach the budget limit."
"The tool's configuration features need improvement."
"The monitoring part requires some serious improvements in Google Kubernetes Engine, as it does not have very good monitoring consoles."
"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."
"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 monitoring and logging could be improved."
"The product monitoring tool does not work for us."
"OpenShift Container Platform is an expensive solution, and its pricing could be improved."
"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."
"There is room for improvement with integration."
"The complexity of the installation could be reduced. While we got the necessary support, the instructions could be clearer."
Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews while OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 36 reviews. Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0, while OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Google Kubernetes Engine writes "The auto-scaling feature helps during peak hours, but the support is not great". 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, Kubernetes, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, 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, Amazon Elastic Container Service and NGINX Ingress Controller. 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.
