NGINX Ingress Controller vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform comparison

"From my experience, I think the main benefit NGINX Ingress Controller provides to the end user is the reliability of NGINX Ingress Controller itself."

"Dashboards... give us all the details we need to see about the microservices."

"I think it's a pretty scalable tool...The solution's technical support has been pretty good."

"It’s user-friendly."

"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."

"The most valuable feature for me in the OpenShift Container Platform is the option to manage different containers and environments and also being able to switch among them."

"OpenShift provides tools that tell me everything I have on a container, and I can make it on-premise or on a cloud infrastructure."

"On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."

"Everything is packaged into OpenShift Container Platform."

"Most customers are satisfied with the reverse proxy capability, but the main issue is that the Ingress NGINX, the one that is most widely used, will be deprecated this month."

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

"OpenShift has a pretty steep learning curve. It's not an easy tool to use. It's not only OpenShift but Kubernetes itself. The good thing is that Red Hat provides specific targeted training. There are five or six pieces of training where you can get certifications. The licenses for OpenShift are pretty expensive, so they could be cheaper because the competition isn't sleeping, and Red Hat must take that into account."

"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."

"The complexity of the installation could be reduced. While we got the necessary support, the instructions could be clearer."

"The UI could be more user-friendly to drive tasks more effectively through the interface."

"The solution does not work on a route-wise NFS."

"It has an option to install OpenShift without connecting it to the Internet. We tried this, but it was very hard. We couldn't manage to use that option. We wanted to use it offline for installations, updates, upgrades, etc., but we didn't find the offline installation and updates easy. This could be better."

"We encounter difficulties while accessing the environment and managing the cluster. This particular area needs improvement."

"Its price is a bit high because it's a premium product, but as long as the business is ready to pay for that, it's okay."

"We have to pay for the license."

"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."

"Its licensing is completely incomprehensible. We have special people within our company. They discuss with Red Hat subscription managers. It is too complex, and I do not understand it. We are from the government, and we are trying to be as cheap as possible. Sometimes, I am just amazed at the amount of money that we have to pay. It is crazy."

"The product is expensive."

"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 price is slightly on the higher side. It is something that can be worked on because most of the businesses now have margins."

"We currently have an annual license renewal."