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

Juniper AppFormix vs OpenNebula comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 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

Juniper AppFormix
Ranking in Cloud Management
27th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenNebula
Ranking in Cloud Management
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Cloud Management category, the mindshare of Juniper AppFormix is 0.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenNebula is 6.8%, up from 6.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Management
 

Featured Reviews

Ankur Chauhan - PeerSpot reviewer
Good scalability, useful in terms of collective analytics, and low latency
For a hybrid cloud area, I see some issues when on the hybrid cloud; you want to use this kind of solution. It doesn't work great everywhere. If it's a complete solution from them, then it's very great. But when it's a hybrid cloud I'm trying to make, then I find some issues here. Moreover, my expectations were probably slightly more for the third-party tool integration; for example, regarding the analytics, I had some different tools. So, integration was not as good as I was expecting. So, analytics, configuration tool I was not really happy. So, there is room for improvement in context with integration with existing tools in our network environment.
FOURES Jean-Philippe - PeerSpot reviewer
Reliable, simple to manage, and offers great technical support
The support of VXLAN fits with our network management. Thanks to this we can propose mixed solutions using virtual resources on OpenNebula and bare metal servers hosted in our facilities linked to each other on the sale network. This use case is very useful when some applications need bare metal power (Kubernetes workers, huge databases, AI models computations, et cetera). The cluster management is very useful for splitting our different clusters (mutual vs dedicated). We can manage deployments and capacity planning without pain. The API is also really simple and it helped us to develop the Terraform provider to manage OpenNebula like any other cloud infrastructure.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's a stable product. I didn't find any issues with regard to stability. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"I also like the ability to build custom functions. I can define a function where I have two types of views and configure the dependencies. The virtual data centers concept allows me to define users. If a user wants to join certain kinds of machines, the host and the other user won't see them. It gives me the flexibility to define multiple views and data centers in one place."
"The live migration feature has been great and is something we use very often."
"OpenNebula is easy to deploy and manage compared to other solutions like OpenStack."
"The solution provides templates for configurations that can easily be exchanged to VMs."
"For the entire data center, as a private cloud, I believe that user management, expert management, and the virtual data center is completely magic for the users."
"OpenNebula has very good integration with SAP Storage."
"With a single click, we could set things up and initiate them."
"The service feature appeals most to us, thus it is the most valuable."
 

Cons

"My expectations were probably slightly more for the third-party tool integration; for example, regarding the analytics, I had some different tools. So, integration was not as good as I was expecting. So, analytics, configuration tool I was not really happy. So, there is room for improvement in context with integration with existing tools in our network environment."
"This solution has a yearly licensing. In my country, it's really expensive."
"They should add more features like object storage."
"The protocol for clusterization is rough and doesn't work well."
"As with all enterprise software licensing, the pricing is not intuitive and must be negotiated; grandfathered contracts are better than anything offered today."
"Backup features are only available in the enterprise edition. The community version lacks a good solution for making backups."
"The storage feature that they have is a bit confusing."
"An area for improvement in OpenNebula is the number of features it has. The solution doesn't have that many cloud features compared to other solutions. You'd say, "Okay, simplicity over a rich feature list?" Some say, "No, I need a big machine or a cloud interface for my customers to manage resources. I don't have to go and do it for them." Some people do it that way, and it works, but I'd like to improve the limited features in OpenNebula."
"There are small things that are hard. For example, making sure that it is going to be installable on public clouds."
"Most of the competitors are offering some sort of billing software to transform their installation to work as a small-sized public cloud, but those offerings from OpenNebula are still missing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"OpenNebula gives good value for money."
"OpenNebuoa has recently come up with a new subscription model that is economical and a lot of new customers are choosing this as it is an easy subscription model."
"VRA is very expensive but OpenNebula is free."
"The solution is open source so is free."
"The licensing for OpenNebula used to be free, but now it's no longer free. A customer contacted me asking to move to another provider because of the changes in the licensing terms for OpenNebula. I have no information on how much the OpenNebula license is because the customer pays for it, and I only do the integration."
"We use the Community Edition, rather than the Enterprise Edition."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Management solutions are best for your needs.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
20%
University
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Juniper AppFormix?
It's a stable product. I didn't find any issues with regard to stability. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.
What needs improvement with Juniper AppFormix?
For a hybrid cloud area, I see some issues when on the hybrid cloud; you want to use this kind of solution. It doesn't work great everywhere. If it's a complete solution from them, then it's very g...
What is your primary use case for Juniper AppFormix?
It's for hosting the telecom workloads. It is for cloud management. This solution has positively impacted real-time analytics and improved our system's performance. Although, it wasn't very much te...
What do you like most about OpenNebula?
The live migration feature has been great and is something we use very often.
What needs improvement with OpenNebula?
The web interface could be better. It's not very difficult to use, but there's room for enhancement. Another area for improvement is the integration with hardware to manage the lower layer of the n...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rackspace, PlusServer
Akamai, BBC, Fermilab, Terradue, Surf Sara, Produban, Netways, ESA, China Mobile, BlackBerry, Deloitte, Fuze, Telefonica, Trivago, Nokia, Encore Tech, Beeks.
Find out what your peers are saying about Juniper AppFormix vs. OpenNebula and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.