We performed a comparison between Kubernetes and OpenShift Container Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."If you don't have resources, you can certainly add another worker node and expand the cluster."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The best feature is autoscaling. It's effortless to use for scaling deployment parts, CI/CD, etc."
"The solution has many valuable features but the most impressive is the ability to scale an application and continuously monitor if all the components of the application are functioning correctly."
"The scalability seems quite good."
"The most valuable feature is the Zero Touch Operations, which involves a new way of performing operations and support. We do not have to do maintenance, the operations are very simple."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The Desired State Configuration is a handy feature; we can deploy a certain number of pods, and the tool will ensure that the state is maintained in our desired configuration."
"The architecture is the best. The solution is scalable if you are on a container-based solution."
"The platform is easy to scale as it supports Windows worker node."
"The banking transactions, inquiries, and account opening have been the most valuable."
"The most valuable features are the monitoring and logging functionalities."
"The auto scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, determined from pre-prepared rules is the most valuable feature. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier, such as an ARB deployment. This really helped in rolling out releases without disrupting services for the end-users."
"On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."
"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."
"It’s user-friendly."
"This solution is not very easy to use."
"The pricing could be improved. It would be ideal if it was a bit less."
"The dashboard, monitoring, and login need improvements."
"Kubernetes is a bit complex, and there's a steep learning curve. At the same time, I cannot imagine how it could be easier. You need many add-ons to it, and the commercial releases of Kubernetes should address that."
"Setup was not straightforward."
"The front end is very rudimentary."
"They need to focus on more security internally."
"It would be nice if they could make it easier for developers and infrastructure staff to automate some of the pieces that they have to do manually at the moment."
"Getting the solution quickly and troubleshooting quickly are both areas where I think it needs some work."
"The solution does not work on a route-wise NFS."
"Container Platform could be improved if we could aggregate logs out of the box instead of having to do it through integrations with other products."
"The complexity of the installation could be reduced. While we got the necessary support, the instructions could be clearer."
"The product monitoring tool does not work for us."
"There should be a simplification of the overall cluster environment. It should require fewer resources. Just to run a simple Hello World app, it requires about seven servers, and that's just crazy. I understand that it is fully redundant, but it's prohibitively expensive to get something simple going."
"With the recent trend of cloud-native, fully managed serverless services, I don't see much documentation about how a customer should move from on-prem to the cloud, or what is the best way to do a lift-and-shift. Even if you are on AWS OCP, which is self-managed infra services, and you want to use the ROSA managed services, what is the best way to achieve that migration? I don't see documentation for these kinds of use cases from Red Hat."
"From a networking perspective, the routing capability can be matured further. OpenShift doesn't handle restrictions on what kind of IPs are allowed, who can access them, and who cannot access them. So it is a simple matter of just using it with adequate network access, at the network level."
Kubernetes is ranked 2nd in Container Management with 42 reviews while OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 17 reviews. Kubernetes is rated 8.6, while OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kubernetes writes "Offers security, scalability, and high availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenShift Container Platform writes "Completely removes overhead for our developers in terms of managing orchestration of Kubernetes clusters". Kubernetes is most compared with VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Rancher Labs, NGINX Ingress Controller and HPE Ezmeral Container Platform, whereas OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Amazon EKS, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Rancher Labs and Amazon Elastic Container Service. See our Kubernetes vs. 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.
