We performed a comparison between OpenShift and Oracle Java Cloud Service based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two PaaS Clouds solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."OpenShift is based on Kubernetes and we try to use all the Kubernetes objects of OpenShift. We don't use features that are specific to OpenShift, except internal certificates for the services. The one feature that is missing from Kubernetes and that is really useful in OpenShift is the lifecycle of the cluster and the ease of installation. We use VMware and VMware integration internally with the OpenShift installer, which is very good. With OpenShift it's easy to spin up or scale out a cluster."
"We want to build a solution that can be deployable to any cloud because of client requirements and OpenShift allows us to do this."
"The security features of OpenShift are strong when in use of role-based access."
"Self-provisioning support saves a lot of time and unnecessary work from the system administrator who can use this time to run and monitor the infrastructure. For the developer, this means less time waiting for the provisioning and excellent flexibility for development, testing, and production. Also, in such systems it is easy for developers to monitor applications even after deployment."
"This solution helps us to account for peak seasons involving higher demand than usual. It also gives us confidence in the security of our overall systems."
"The product's initial setup is very easy, especially compared to AWS."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"It is a stable platform."
"Cloud has provided less maintenance."
"Self-provisioning, easy to choose from WebLogic 11g to 12c."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"Backing up and recovery for my domain is very easy and fast. In addition, applying patches and undoing applied patches is effective and easy to do."
"One key feature is getting to choose the Virtual Machine configurations while setting up the server, which is an automated process."
"The auto-backup, incremental backup and restoration features can be invaluable for management."
"The ability to manage security and access the server from any location with complete security using SSH is perfect for performing crucial tasks, even while travelling."
"The framework supports auto-configuration. A lot of features are already there. It is reliable and user-friendly to develop code, back-end engineering, or locate specific information such as addresses."
"It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory."
"One of the features that I've observed in Tanzu Mission Control is that I can manage multiple Kubernetes environments. For instance, one of my lines of business is using OpenShift OKD; another one wants to use Google Anthos, and somebody else wants to use VMware Tanzu. If I have to manage all these, Tanzu Mission Control is giving me the opportunity to completely manage all of my Kubernetes clusters, whereas, with OpenShift, I can only manage a particular area. I can't manage other Kubernetes clusters. I would like to have the option to manage all Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift."
"The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations."
"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 solution only offers support for one server."
"The interface could be simplified a bit more."
"The area for improvement is mostly in support for legacy applications."
"OpenShift could improve by providing the ability to integrate with public cloud platforms. This way we can easily use the services that these platforms offer. For instance, Amazon AWS. However, all the three major hyper-scalers solutions offer excellent DevOps and CI/CD tooling. If there was an easy way to integrate with them it would be beneficial. We need a way to easily integrate with the monitoring and dashboard services that they provide."
"The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Needs better integration with other Oracle/non-Oracle products."
"The product is satisfactory but we need more training on managing the machine itself. For example, how do we add more storage, how do we extend a specific portion? I would like to see videos illustrating some of the technical tasks that we often need to do."
"There are issues with the application's development, including small glitches and errors."
OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews while Oracle Java Cloud Service is ranked 19th in PaaS Clouds with 15 reviews. OpenShift is rated 8.4, while Oracle Java Cloud Service is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenShift writes "Provides us with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Java Cloud Service writes "User-friendly code development solution needing enhancements addressing glitches". OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud and Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), whereas Oracle Java Cloud Service is most compared with Amazon AWS, Oracle Visual Builder Cloud Service and Microsoft Azure. See our OpenShift vs. Oracle Java Cloud Service 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.
