Komodor vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform comparison

Komodor and Red Hat are both solutions in the Container Management category. Komodor is ranked #13 with an average rating of 8.0, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.2. Komodor holds a 4.2% mindshare in CM, compared to Red Hat’s 20.0% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Komodor users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 96% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.

Komodor

Read 5 Komodor reviews

1,242 Views
1,242 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Red Hat OpenShift Container...

Read 50 Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform reviews

6,753 Views
6,685 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

Komodor

Red Hat OpenShift Container...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 13, 2024

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform and Komodor both operate within the realm of container orchestration and real-time Kubernetes troubleshooting. OpenShift seems to have an edge in comprehensive features for deployment and management, while Komodor excels in specialized troubleshooting.

Features: Red Hat OpenShift is recognized for its comprehensive automation, scalability, and robust security features. The platform supports centralized control of container resources and provides user-friendly interfaces with easy deployment through OpenShift Operator. Komodor offers real-time monitoring and debugging, with features that provide clear insights and facilitate faster problem resolution. Its event timelines and notifications enhance the visibility and management of Kubernetes deployments.

Room for Improvement: OpenShift could benefit from a more simplified deployment process and reduced complexity for users unfamiliar with complex architectures. Enhancing user interface navigation and optimizing resource costs could also be beneficial. Komodor could expand its documentation and tutorials to better assist new users. Additional integration capabilities with various Kubernetes tools and improved scalability options could enhance its usability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenShift's deployment, though feature-rich, requires a certain level of expertise in complex architectures, with reliable customer support. Komodor is noted for its straightforward deployment process and strong support channels, which allow for efficient implementation and issue resolution.

Pricing and ROI: OpenShift’s structured pricing reflects its extensive feature set, potentially resulting in higher initial setup costs but offering broad capabilities for large-scale operations. Komodor generally provides a more affordable option with quicker ROI, focusing on cost-effective troubleshooting within Kubernetes environments.

To learn more, read our detailed Komodor vs. Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Komodor vs. Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 864,155 peers since 2012

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

Komodor

Ranking in Container Management

13th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

9.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Red Hat OpenShift Container...

Ranking in Container Management

1st

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Container Management category, the mindshare of Komodor is 4.2%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is 20.0%, down from 21.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Container Management

Featured Reviews

Jacek Kisynski

Senior Staff Software Developer at Visier

Makes it easier for our development team to "own" Kubernetes, saving our SRE team time

There's nothing in particular that is wrong with Komodor. It's hard to say that there's something we would really like to see improved. I hope that the cost analytics and resource usage allocation areas will see further development. For example, where we can now see if the pods are over- or under-provisioned, I wouldn't mind higher-level development. I would like to see if we're utilizing nodes in the cluster, if pod allocation is optimal, how much idling we have, and whether we scale up and down efficiently. I would like to see them help us optimize costs further. Because, as our company grows and our clusters get busier and busier, any inefficiency is a lot of money wasted. That's definitely high on our wish list: anything that helps us track wasted resources. I am looking forward to using AI-powered troubleshooting workflow that Komodor unrolled recently.

Read full review

Prasad Gupta

Software Engineer at IBM Software Labs

Efficient deployment with resource optimization and multi-region stability

There are several areas where OpenShift could improve. The interface has numerous UI bugs that need addressing. Furthermore, the latest version has deprecated the deployment config, which has its own advantages compared to the deployment container. Lastly, there is no built-in auto-scaling plugin at the OpenShift level; this needs to be addressed as it's available at the cloud provider level, like IBM Cloud.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The event timeline has been super helpful, enabling us to overlay node events in the same timeline as deployment events... That helps an engineer very quickly troubleshoot without having to do too much digging."

"The more time we use Komodor the more we save. Currently, we have seen around a ten percent return on investment."

"The most valuable aspect is the speed with which I can narrow down what's going on. Usually, I look at the overview of events and then the timeline of an event and the status of the logs to quickly check what's happening or what has happened."

"The service overview is definitely the most valuable feature. With it, I can see all the services and see if they're healthy or not without having to go specifically into each workflow individually. It has been immensely helpful for us whenever we've had network issues or other such issues. We've been able to use Komodor and see at a glance where there might be potential issues."

"Komodor's multi-cluster centralized event timeline is the most valuable feature."

"The most valuable are security features, particularly when operating in the cloud."

"The solution's security throughout the stack and the software supply chain is very reliable. When it was on-prem, it was by default secured by our company firewalls and security tools, and now it's in the cloud, which has its security and systems in place. This provides stability to our infrastructure."

"It is very lightweight and can be deployed very fast, especially when it comes to containers."

"Red Hat's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is good. It is a lightweight operating system. You don't have to worry about the security patches on the system. You can update the entire environment with security patches, which is a nice feature."

"The stack in the software supply chain is one of the main reasons that we use OpenShift. When I came to this company, we bought hardware from IBM named Bluemix, and they used ICP, which stands for IBM Cloud Private."

"OpenShift's core-based licensing model provides significant benefits regarding enterprise support and scalability."

"The software is user-friendly and straightforward to use, which is favorable to a developer."

"OpenShift integrates seamlessly with our CI/CD pipelines, offering robust automation and deployment capabilities."

More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform pros

Cons

"I would like to see improvements in how the product is installed. We've already communicated these things directly to Komodor. One feature we would like to see is for Komodor to be highly available on the clusters. Currently, it's only able to run in one instance within the cluster."

"I like the alerts that Komodor provides, but I think the alert interface could be improved."

"I hope that the cost analytics and resource usage allocation areas will see further development. For example, where we can now see if the pods are over- or under-provisioned, I wouldn't mind higher-level development."

"One thing we don't have visibility into, which I would love to have, is metrics, such as user logins and usage. It's really hard to know what people are doing when I don't have any metrics on that directly."

"Komodor's visibility could be improved."

"The product's interface is a bit buggy."

"The initial setup can be hard."

"We've encountered challenges when transitioning applications between these environments."

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

"I believe OpenShift Container Platform can improve in networking, architecture, and cloud areas by reducing deployment time, lowering costs, and streamlining engineer resources"

"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."

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

"We are not big customers of Red Hat, but sometimes, we have severe bugs. We are very innovative, and sometimes, we have to wait for a long time to get proper attention. Red Hat should improve on that."

More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"As far as I can recall, the licensing cost was fair."

"Other options pop up, but Komodor's pricing works well for our use case. It's fair, and we appreciate it. A lot of other vendors price their solutions in a way that would cost us disproportionately more money than they should. Komodor's pricing is reasonable in the way they calculate usage and value."

"The licensing model is fine. It is per node, which is good, but the pricing is high. Currently, I am fine with it, but I am a little concerned about the pricing as we scale. So, it is on the higher end. On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the most expensive, Komodor is a seven."

"We pay according to the number of resources we have; if we are a small start-up, we have fewer resources and thus pay less."

"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."

"The solution is expensive, and I rate it an eight out of ten. There is a subscription called OpenShift Plus, which offers additional features and products the vendor provides to complement the OpenShift Container Platform. These include ACM, Red Hat Quay, and Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation."

"We have to pay for the license."

"I'm an architect, so I have no involvement in the pricing and licensing of the platform."

"OpenShift with Red Hat support is pretty costly. We have done a comparison between AWS EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Services) which provides fully managed services from AWS. It's built on open-source-based Kubernetes clusters and it is much cheaper compared to Red Hat, but it is a little expensive compared to ECS provided by AWS."

"The license to use the OpenShift Container Platform is free. If you are capable with Java you can modify it."

"If you buy the product for a year or three, you get a lot of discounts...I feel that the product is worth its cost, especially since setting it up can be done with just a few clicks."

"I'm not familiar with pricing or financial aspects. In terms of effort versus benefit, it's worth it."

More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

864,155 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

16%

Comms Service Provider

10%

Wellness & Fitness Company

10%

Media Company

Financial Services Firm

21%

Computer Software Company

11%

Government

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Komodor?

The most valuable aspect is the speed with which I can narrow down what's going on. Usually, I look at the overview of events and then the timeline of an event and the status of the logs to quickly...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Komodor?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Komodor?

We are an HR analytics company, and we do a lot of data processing. Our customers send us their HR-related data, and we process it so that we can run analytics on it. We process it on Kubernetes cl...

See all answers

Which is better - OpenShift Container Platform or VMware Tanzu Mission Control?

Red Hat Openshift is ideal for organizations using microservices and cloud environments. I like that the platform is auto-scalable, which saves overhead time for developers. I think Openshift can b...

See all answers

What do you like most about OpenShift Container Platform?

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...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OpenShift Container Platform?

The current licensing cost for this solution is around $23,000 per year, per month. Regarding the current licensing cost, I would rate my satisfaction around seven or seven and a half; there's alwa...

See all answers

Comparisons

Portainer vs Komodor

Compared 81% of the time

Rancher Labs vs Komodor

Compared 12% of the time

Kubernetes vs Komodor

Compared 4% of the time

More Komodor Competitors

Amazon EKS vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

Compared 46% of the time

Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

Compared 14% of the time

Nutanix Kubernetes Platform (NKP) vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

Compared 10% of the time

HashiCorp Nomad vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

Compared 5% of the time

More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Komodor

July 2025

Download Komodor product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

July 2025

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform report

Download Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform product report

Overview

Komodor is the missing piece in your DevOps toolchain - offering one unified platform from which you can gain a deep understanding of all of your system events and changes. We integrate with all of your tools, monitor changes and alerts and organize information on a clear digestible dashboard and provide you with the right context at the right time.

Komodor

Red Hat® OpenShift® offers a consistent hybrid cloud foundation for building and scaling containerized applications. Benefit from streamlined platform installation and upgrades from one of the enterprise Kubernetes leaders.

Red Hat

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

Edenor, BMW, Ford, Argentine Ministry of Health

Buyer's Guide

Komodor vs. Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

July 2025

Free Report: Komodor vs. Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

Find out what your peers are saying about Komodor vs. Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

864,155 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Komodor vs. Red Hat 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.