Google Kubernetes Engine vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform comparison

"Stability is perfect for me."

"The feature that I like the most is the ease of use as compared to AWS. Its ease of use is very high, and I can quickly deploy clusters with a simple template."

"It is easy to use and deploy."

"The initial setup is very easy. We can create our cluster using the command line, or using our console."

"Stability-wise, this solution is really good."

"The deployment of the cluster is very easy."

"The solution is available across AWS, GCP and Azure and is seamless."

"On the tip of a command, you can scale in or scale out, and it offers every robust platform to implement DevOps processes for your automation solutions. The product fully supports the IaC concept."

"The most valuable features are the monitoring and logging functionalities."

"On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."

"Autoscaling is an excellent feature that makes it very simple to scale our applications as required."

"They have built on top of Kubernetes. Most of the Kubernetes latest technology is already supported by the solution."

"The tool's most valuable features include high availability, scalability, and security. Other features like advanced cluster management, advanced cluster security, and Red Hat Quay make it powerful for businesses. It also comes with features like OpenShift Virtualization."

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

"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."

"More tools are available in OpenShift Container Platform to maintain and manage the clusters."

"The product could be cheaper."

"The console for this solution could be improved because it is very limited."

"I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten."

"There is room for improvement in the cluster updates process. Specifically, when managing both non-production and production clusters, we need a sequential functionality."

"Google Kubernetes Engine's cost should be improved because it is high."

"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."

"t is not very stable."

"Google Kubernetes Engine is less stable in some highly complex deployments with many nodes."

"The initial setup can be hard."

"Getting the solution quickly and troubleshooting quickly are both areas where I think it needs some work."

"OpenShift Container Platform could improve by having better integration."

"Setting up OpenShift isn't easy. I rate it three out of ten for ease of setup. We're deploying it in three phases. They're in the second phase now. The total deployment time will be five months. We expect to complete the deployment this March. There are 13 people on three teams working on this deployment."

"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."

"The solution does not work on a route-wise NFS."

"The solution needs to introduce open ID connect integration for role-based access control."

"The monitoring and logging could be improved."

"Currently, it costs around $1000 per month which sorted our deployment. So once we get more clients, having a huge suffix, costs can go up."

"Pricing is a bit expensive compared to some other products, but it's acceptable."

"This is an open source solution, so there is no pricing or licensing."

"I would rate Kubernetes' pricing four out of five."

"Initially, Google Kubernetes Engine was a little bit cheaper, but now its prices have been increased compared to the pricing model and the features that are made available by its competitors."

"The product is a little bit expensive."

"Its pricing is good. They bill us only per user. That's nice."

"I rate the product's price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price. The product is competitively priced."

"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."

"OpenShift Container Platform is highly-priced."

"The pricing is a bit more expensive than expected."

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

"Its price is a bit high because it's a premium product, but as long as the business is ready to pay for that, it's okay."

"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 pricing is expensive for licensing."

"We currently have an annual license renewal."