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

IBM Cloud Private vs Red Hat OpenShift comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

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

IBM Cloud Private
Ranking in PaaS Clouds
18th
Average Rating
6.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat OpenShift
Ranking in PaaS Clouds
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Server Virtualization Software (10th), Container Management (11th), Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms (6th), Agile and DevOps Services (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the PaaS Clouds category, the mindshare of IBM Cloud Private is 0.9%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat OpenShift is 11.6%, down from 11.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
PaaS Clouds Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Red Hat OpenShift11.6%
IBM Cloud Private0.9%
Other87.5%
PaaS Clouds
 

Featured Reviews

Mustafa Kavcioglu - PeerSpot reviewer
Beneficial for compliance issues, great support; there are defects around multi-cloud management
The setup is fully automated, so there was no problem there. We have 13 users in our company who manage the system but many of our customers also use it. The users in our company our general admins, cloud admins and project admins. At the peak, there would have been a million customers throughout Turkey.
Pratul Shukla - PeerSpot reviewer
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

"The most valuable attribute is the platform's ability to consistently deliver high reliability."
"Our core banking process was monolithic. To address this, we transitioned to a microservices-based architecture. Leveraging Microsoft technologies, including Terminals version 23, we’ve revamped our banking operations. Not all services are microservices; some remain monolithic for simplicity. Containerization is pivotal, with OpenShift (based on Kubernetes and Docker) managing our microservices."
"We have control of the ESXi."
"Excellent technical support."
"The product's framework is good, it integrates well with API Connect, and the private cloud allows for use in any location."
"Scaling and uptime of the applications are positives."
"Two stand-out features are the security model and value-add features that don't exist in Upstream Kubernetes."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"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."
"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."
"The security is good."
"The security features of OpenShift are strong when in use of role-based access."
"The stability has been good."
 

Cons

"lacking in multi-cloud management."
"The support and pricing need to improve."
"One issue with the solution is latency because there is lag time when we connect."
"I've noticed that the satellite services layer requires some improvement compared to platforms like Azure or Microsoft. While it's in development, I believe the satellite layer has room for enhancement. Additionally, the DevOps layer could benefit from closer integrations, especially for using external applications like Jenkins."
"Auto-scaling and managing pod scaling in the microservices architecture, a core feature of IBM Cloud Private, can pose challenges, especially when dealing with larger volumes of traffic."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"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."
"The speed of deploying new applications can be improved."
"I think that OpenShift has too many commands for running services from the CLI, and the configuration files are a little complicated."
"Not a ten because it's not a standard solution and the endpoint protection user has to prepare with documentation or have training from other people. It's not easy to start because it's not like other solutions."
"OpenShift can improve monitoring. Sometimes there are issues. Additionally, the solution could benefit from protective tools if something was to happen in our network."
"Documentation and technical support could be improved. The product is good, but when we raise a case with support—say we are having an image issue—the support is not really up to the mark. It is difficult to get support... When we raise a case, their support people will hesitate to get on a call or a screen-sharing session. That is a major drawback when it comes to OpenShift."
"The GUI could have more capabilities, particularly around virtualization."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay annual licensing fees."
"I rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten."
"In general, the cost is on the higher side."
"The solution is expensive."
"The product’s pricing is expensive."
"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."
"Pricing of OpenShift depends on the number of nodes and who is hosting it."
"The product has reasonable pricing."
"We use the license-free version of Red Hat Openshift but we pay for the support."
"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."
"I don't deal with the cost part, but I know that the cost is very high when compared to other products. They charge for CPU and memory, but we don't worry about it."
"The pricing is standard; the solution isn't particularly expensive or affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which PaaS Clouds solutions are best for your needs.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
27%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise40
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Cloud Private?
Our core banking process was monolithic. To address this, we transitioned to a microservices-based architecture. Leveraging Microsoft technologies, including Terminals version 23, we’ve revamped ou...
What needs improvement with IBM Cloud Private?
I've noticed that the satellite services layer requires some improvement compared to platforms like Azure or Microsoft. While it's in development, I believe the satellite layer has room for enhance...
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

ICP
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company
UPS, Cathay Pacific, Hilton
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Cloud Private vs. Red Hat OpenShift and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.