We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure and OpenShift based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: When choosing the best PaaS Cloud Solution, PeerSpot users rate Microsoft Azure as the best choice. Microsoft Azure provides robust PaaS options, such as robust platform and infrastructure services. The solution also functions extremely well as a SaaS and IaaS solution. Many users feel security and monitoring is lacking somewhat with OpenShift and that it should have better integrations with public clouds.
"The valuable features of Microsoft Azure are that it is cloud-based and has good storage. The storage is completely managed by Azure. We do not need to do any patching of security because it is handled by Azure which is a benefit. The solution is fully compatible with the Microsoft technology stack and is very scalable."
"There are many different components such as SaaS, PaaS, and API so every month they are releasing a few hundred new features."
"It's very easy to build a new service and get it into production."
"Azure Data Lake is useful. We are in the process of populating the data lake for our current project. Also, we are directly importing for Power BI to using PowerPlay."
"It is a very straightforward solution that provides a wide range of services."
"The most valuable features of Azure for me are its ease of management, recoverable virtual machines with backup support, excellent customer support, and user-friendly interface."
"The most valuable feature is the single sign-on with multifactor authentication."
"Azure virtual machines are stand-out."
"Great integration with Jenkins for constant integration and development. Supports all the major languages and environments - PHP, Java, Node.js, Ruby, etc."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is the great customer service and the ability for our team to get assistance when we need it."
"Valuable features include auto-recreate of pod if pod fails; fast rollback, with one click, to previous version."
"We are able to operate client’s platform without downtime during security patch management each month and provide a good SLA (as scalability for applications is processed during heavy client website load, automatically)."
"The solution provides a lot of flexibility to the application team for running their applications in the container platform, without needing to monitor the entire infrastructure all the time. It automatically scales and automatically self-heals. There is also a mechanism to alert the team in case it is over-committing or overutilizing the application."
"I am impressed with the product's security features."
"Provides support throughout the whole platform."
"Security is also an important part of this solution. By default, things are running with limited privileges and securely confined to their own resources. This way, different users and projects can all use the same infrastructure."
"One area for enhancement could be in the realm of big data and unstructured data storage."
"Could be more user friendly; security features should be improved."
"The permissions and controls in the product are not easy to use."
"The initial setup can be improved."
"There are many bugs in the solutions and we already have a ticket to Microsoft. Their content team is working on that."
"Ease of use could be improved."
"Microsoft's technical support could be improved."
"When we are doing transfers of records in large amounts, for example, petabytes of data or few long datasets, the performance should not degrade as it does."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"There are challenges related to additional security layers, connectivity compliance for endpoints, and integration."
"We want to see better alerting, especially in critical situations requiring immediate intervention. Until we go to the dashboard, it can be challenging to quickly recognize that there's an issue for us to deal with. Therefore, a popup of the event or a tweaked GUI to catch our attention when it's alerting would be a welcome change. Everything else is good. We don't need any additional features. From the operations perspective, as an administrator, there is nothing concerning."
"Its virtual upgrades are time-consuming."
"This is a fairly expensive solution."
"One glaring flaw is how OpenShift handles operators. Sometimes operators are forced to go into a particular namespace. When you do that, OpenShift creates an installation plan for everything in that namespace. These operators may be completely separate from each other and have nothing to do with each other, but now they are tied at the hip. You can't upgrade one without upgrading all of them. That's a huge mistake and highly problematic."
"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."
"Not a ten because it's not a standard solution and the endpoint protection user has to prepare with documentation or have training from other people. It's not easy to start because it's not like other solutions."
Microsoft Azure is ranked 1st in PaaS Clouds with 299 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Microsoft Azure is rated 8.4, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure writes "Promotes clear, logical structures preventing impractical configurations and offers seamless integration ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenShift writes "Provides us with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints". Microsoft Azure is most compared with Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Google Firebase, Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry and IBM Public Cloud, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Google Cloud, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI). See our Microsoft Azure vs. OpenShift report.
See our list of best PaaS Clouds vendors.
We monitor all PaaS Clouds 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.
