"I like that it has really boosted cloud-native development and stood the test of time. The underlying architecture allows one to scale as per the business KPIs much faster."
"This product has a rich toolset from the community including CNI plug-ins, Helm packages, operators, dashboards, various integrations, etc."
"I like that it gives you all the flexibility, for example, auto-scaling. Everything is figured out exactly right. It manages all your workloads without much intervention. It can scale in, scale out, and with security. Everything looks pretty good compared to the old legacy way of working."
"The implementation, and the way that they can, with a few clicks, load hundreds of machines without any trouble is very useful."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The product is highly scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Docker containers."
"It's really scalable and efficient for resource management."
"Tanzu Mission Control has quite a set of rich features when compared to OpenShift."
"The most important feature of Tanzu Mission Control is its integration with the other products, especially with ESX and vSAN. This is a strong part of Tanzu Mission Control. In other solutions, such as OpenShift or Kubernetes, you can find similar features, but they don't have similar integration. With Tanzu Mission Control, you get a total solution with only one provider. You have the integration with the infrastructure, virtualization of networking, and virtualization of storage. You have a natural integration, and you don't have the problem of integrating it with different products or providers. Sometimes, different companies have good integration, but it is not always guaranteed. For example, many years ago, Cisco and VMware were good partners in networking, but when VMware started to sell ESX, the relationship was broken. This is the problem that you can face when you are using solutions from two different companies."
"The multi-tenancy with the VCD is great."
"VMware Tanzu Mission Control has many valuable features, such as ease of use and customization."
"The Kubernetes dashboard can be improved. It is currently a mess. We were using Rancher earlier, and everyone was happy with the dashboard. Right now, we are using Kubernetes, and it's not working with Microsoft workstations. We still have problems with the dashboard. It's terrible."
"One feature I would actually like to see is the network monitoring part. When we talk about communities, it's mostly the computer side. But it does have some enhancements on the networking side which they have recently released. I would like to see more enhancement where we can monitor the networks of the Kubernetes cluster or the Kubernetes workloads."
"The plugins could be better. That is one pain point we had, and we had to get in with many other open standards, like Calico networking and more."
"It would be very interesting if they could introduce a template engine to set dynamic values in the deployment time. It would be ideal if it could be native in Kubernetes as it would be much easier."
"This solution is not very easy to use."
"It would be useful to have a basic and stable interface for monitoring and quick deployment purposes, especially when the deployments are big like a proof of concept or proof of technology. Currently, you need to use the Kubernetes console for all functionalities. It is not a quick-to-learn product if you are not from a Linux background. You need to be very skilled at Linux to learn it quickly. It took me two to three months because I mostly work with Microsoft products. For people who are not from a Linux background, the learning curve is a little bit longer."
"The setup and operation of the product should be simplified."
"The solution can be quite complex for many users."
"We want to see a new feature that helps build more security architecture like Zero Trust Security or shifting left in Kubernetes."
"The solution could improve by having better integration with other solutions such as HPE."
"It is not easy to build a solution with containers. It has a graphical user interface, but you need to have a lot of knowledge of Linux and how to work in the command mode. Its support can also be improved. Currently, its biggest disadvantage is that it is a new product, and the clients prefer to go for a solution that has been in the market for a long time. There are not that many people who know this product."
"This product doesn't have a GUI. In order to use it properly, I need to connect it to a new GUI or build a GUI to manage it — it's pretty difficult."
Kubernetes is ranked 1st in Container Management with 26 reviews while VMware Tanzu Mission Control is ranked 3rd in Container Management with 4 reviews. Kubernetes is rated 8.6, while VMware Tanzu Mission Control is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Kubernetes writes "Offers security, scalability, and high availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Tanzu Mission Control writes "A centrally managed security platform with a rich set of features, but it could be more secure". Kubernetes is most compared with VMware Tanzu Build Service, Nutanix Karbon, HashiCorp Nomad, Cisco Container Platform and HPE Ezmeral Container Platform, whereas VMware Tanzu Mission Control is most compared with OpenShift Container Platform, Rancher Labs, Nutanix Karbon, Amazon EKS and Amazon Elastic Container Service. See our Kubernetes vs. VMware Tanzu Mission Control 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.
