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

Infinite Blue vs Microsoft Azure vs Red Hat OpenShift comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Mindshare comparison

Rapid Application Development Software
Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS)
Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

Logisthead67 - PeerSpot reviewer
A simple solution with an easy setup and good stability
The solution is simple. It's very easy to deploy, and there's no risk with sorting that out. It's very fast to develop the screens and the modelilng The solution is expensive. They should try to improve their pricing strategy. The user interface should add some more functionality in the next…
Nicolas Chabrier - PeerSpot reviewer
Promotes clear, logical structures preventing impractical configurations and offers seamless integration
The only thing is regarding the management of multi-cloud environments. That's not really possible. So basically, it's wonderful if you manage Microsoft clearly and if you manage Microsoft Azure, but if you need to consume external services and have a global overview of all your consumption, it's not the case. Google, for instance, has tools that help you manage multiple environments, which makes sense because Google is really the cloud provider. So that's why they need to be compliant with the others. But for sure, Microsoft's approach is different, and it's wonderful when you're one hundred percent on Azure. But if you'd like to have something more of a multi-cloud strategy, that's a bit of a gap where they could improve.
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 solution is simple. It's very easy to deploy, and there's no risk with sorting that out. It's very fast to develop the screens and the modelling."
"It is easy to install."
"We have not had any issues with the performance, or the stability."
"Being able to set up, change and configure VMs is easy - a lot easier than in AWS."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The best feature in Microsoft Azure is that I don't have to change computers. I don't have to upgrade or if something breaks or a hard drive crashes. The lack of a physical aspect is the major feature for me."
"This is a very stable product."
"I have not had a problem with the stability. It is reliable."
"One of the features I have found to be valuable is the scale set feature."
"I would recommend Red Hat OpenShift, especially for its automation capabilities."
"OpenShift is based on Kubernetes and we try to use all the Kubernetes objects of OpenShift. We don't use features that are specific to OpenShift, except internal certificates for the services. The one feature that is missing from Kubernetes and that is really useful in OpenShift is the lifecycle of the cluster and the ease of installation. We use VMware and VMware integration internally with the OpenShift installer, which is very good. With OpenShift it's easy to spin up or scale out a cluster."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"There is a quick deployment of the application, and we can scale out efficiently."
"The scalability of OpenShift combined with Kubernetes is good. At least from the software standpoint, it becomes quite easy to handle the scalability through configuration. You need to constantly monitor the underlying infrastructure and ensure that it has adequate provisioning. If you have enough infrastructure, then managing the scalability is quite easy which is done through configuration."
"The security features of OpenShift are strong when in use of role-based access."
"Its interface is good. The other part is the seamless integration with the stack that I have. Because my stack is mostly of Red Hat, which is running on top of VMware virtualization, I have had no issues with integrating both of these and trying to install them. We had a seamless integration with the other non-Red Hat products as well."
"Overall, the solution's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is excellent."
 

Cons

"The solution is expensive. They should try to improve their pricing strategy."
"There are always new features to add in terms of additional indicators, improving the looks of the dashboard and stuff. There are some dashboards that are not attractive, we are looking to make them fancier and nice-looking."
"I would say an improvement could be allowing for more external, third-party tools. However, I think that's their vision, how they develop the product."
"The solution’s stability could be improved."
"Improvements are needed in Azure to enhance integration tools and support for effectively migrating and managing third-party dependencies."
"A problem with Azure is that the architecture that they have is not really compliant — not really connecting with the endpoint Cloud."
"There should be be better support for microservices and containers."
"Integration with other services could be much better."
"The solution's initial setup was a bit complex in the beginning."
"It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory."
"The solution needs to support the new features in Kubernetes more quickly."
"Credential not hidden, so people on the same group can view it."
"One of the features that I've observed in Tanzu Mission Control is that I can manage multiple Kubernetes environments. For instance, one of my lines of business is using OpenShift OKD; another one wants to use Google Anthos, and somebody else wants to use VMware Tanzu. If I have to manage all these, Tanzu Mission Control is giving me the opportunity to completely manage all of my Kubernetes clusters, whereas, with OpenShift, I can only manage a particular area. I can't manage other Kubernetes clusters. I would like to have the option to manage all Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift."
"The latest 4.0 version of OpenShift disabled a few of the features we previously made use of, although this wasn't a huge deal."
"The speed of deploying new applications can be improved."
"I had to frequently upgrade my cluster due to OpenShift's rolling updates every six months, which I found to be excessive."
"This solution could be improved by offering best practices on standardization and additional guidance on how to use this solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Make use of Azure pricing calculator and you will find out that Azure Is still more reasonable that the competition and do your research, when unclear speak with your MS support."
"The product is expensive."
"The cost could definitely be lower."
"Pricing of Microsoft Azure services depends on the build of what you prepare to deploy."
"There are added costs to the company or for scaling for most premium products."
"We have an annual license subscription to use the solution."
"Customers need to purchase additional services because of the complexity of it."
"Azure is cheaper than solutions from other cloud vendors like AWS or Google."
"The price depends on the type and the nature of the organizations, along with the types of projects that are of considerable range."
"We use the license-free version of Red Hat Openshift but we pay for the support."
"My company makes payments towards the licensing costs attached to OpenShift."
"It's important to start small because the solution is scalable. We can build our cluster and look at the bundle option, not the external subscriptions. Talking to the people at Red Hat can save us money."
"This solution is fairly expensive but comes at an average cost compared to other solutions in the market."
"The product's support is expensive. I would rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten."
"The solution is cost-effective."
"We had a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) license for all our servers' operating systems. By having multiple Red Hat products together, you can negotiate costs and leverage on having a sort of enterprise license agreement to reduce the overall outlay or TCO."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Rapid Application Development Software solutions are best for your needs.
865,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user8586 - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 14, 2013
Amazon vs Rackspace vs Microsoft vs Google: Cloud Hosting Services Comparison
Amazon Web Services, Rackspace OpenStack, Microsoft Windows Azure and Google are the major cloud hosting and storage service providers. Athough Amazon is top of them and is oldest in cloud market, Rackspace, Microsoft and Google are giving tough competition to each other and to Amazon also for…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
University
6%
Financial Services Firm
29%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Which is preferable - IBM Public Cloud or Microsoft Azure?
IBM Public Cloud is IBM’s Platform-as-a-Service. It aims to provide organizations with a secure cloud environment to ...
Which is better - SAP Cloud Platform or Microsoft Azure?
One of the best features of SAP Cloud Platform is that it is web-based and you can log in from anywhere in the world....
How does Microsoft Azure compare to Google Firebase?
I would recommend Google Firebase instead of Microsoft Azure, simply for the array of features that it has to offer. ...
How does OpenShift compare with Amazon AWS?
Open Shift makes managing infrastructure easy because of self-healing and automatic scaling. There is also a wonderfu...
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....
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

Progress Rollbase, Rollbase
Windows Azure, Azure, MS Azure
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Pironet NDH, Jungle Lasers, Aintercarga SAS, ASPsoftware, Cloudselling
BMW, Toyota, easyJet, NBC Sports, HarperCollins, Aviva, TalkTalk Business, Avanade, and Telenor.
UPS, Cathay Pacific, Hilton
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, ServiceNow, Oracle and others in Rapid Application Development Software. Updated: August 2025.
865,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.