Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Oracle Java Cloud Service vs Red Hat OpenShift comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Oracle Java Cloud Service
Ranking in PaaS Clouds
17th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat OpenShift
Ranking in PaaS Clouds
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Server Virtualization Software (10th), Container Management (12th), Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms (7th), Agile and DevOps Services (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the PaaS Clouds category, the mindshare of Oracle Java Cloud Service is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat OpenShift is 12.0%, up from 11.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
PaaS Clouds
 

Featured Reviews

Adam Elguennioui - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers flexibility and better accessibility to users
The security part of the tool is not so strong, making it an area I would like to see improved in the solution. When working with a cloud tool, it's never 100 percent secure and it is always something to take into account. I would like to be more comfortable working with it and feeling safer. In the future, the tool can be made faster. In the future, I would like to see maybe some AI features in the tool to help automate stuff. You need to be able to create your own models to help create some automated actions.
Pratul Shukla - PeerSpot reviewer
Adopting a flexible and efficient approach with noticeable improvements in operational costs and continued challenges in job management
Currently, one of the biggest challenges we face is with services and jobs. For spawning batches, although it has crons, it is not easy to integrate with enterprise systems such as Autosys. The entire company uses Autosys, but we are not able to integrate it effectively. We need intermediate servers to run OC utility commands and initiate the cron job. We have to do a lot of modifications to ensure our batches work properly. With physical or virtual servers, even in AWS, we are able to write and manage multiple jobs. Managing batches in Red Hat OpenShift has been a significant challenge. Integrating third parties is a challenge with Red Hat OpenShift. For example, with Elasticsearch, onboarding itself was difficult, running file beats and dealing with routing issues. It is not straightforward, especially since we have some components in AWS as. AWS has many capabilities that come out of the box and are easier to work with compared to Red Hat OpenShift. Red Hat OpenShift's biggest disadvantage is they do not provide any private cloud setup where we can host on our site using their services. The main reason we went with Red Hat OpenShift was because it is a private cloud, and we have regulatory requirements that prevent us from using public cloud.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It is pretty easy to use."
"Cloud has provided less maintenance."
"The auto-backup, incremental backup and restoration features can be invaluable for management."
"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."
"The automated features of auto-purging in 12c helps clear disk space on a routine basis."
"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."
"One key feature is getting to choose the Virtual Machine configurations while setting up the server, which is an automated process."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"A valuable feature of Red Hat OpenShift is its ability to handle increased loads by automatically adding nodes."
"The stability has been good."
"OpenShift facilitates DevOps practices and improves CI/CD workflows in terms of stability compared to Jenkins."
"OpenShift's superior dashboard is a notable strength, especially when compared to Kubernetes."
"I have seen a return on investment, and it depends upon the types and the nature of some of the most critical applications that have been hosted on the OpenShift infrastructure."
"OpenShift is more enterprise-oriented, offers good support, and provides integration with multiple solutions."
"The concept of containers and scaling on demand is a feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat OpenShift."
"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."
 

Cons

"The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"There are issues with the application's development, including small glitches and errors."
"The security part of the tool is not so strong, making it an area I would like to see improved in the solution."
"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."
"Needs better integration with other Oracle/non-Oracle products."
"I think that OpenShift has too many commands for running services from the CLI, and the configuration files are a little complicated."
"This solution could be improved by offering best practices on standardization and additional guidance on how to use this solution."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"Managing batches in Red Hat OpenShift has been a significant challenge."
"They could work on the pricing model, making it more flexible and possibly lower."
"Room for improvement is around the offerings that come as a bundle with the container platform. The packaging of the platform should be done such that customers do not have to purchase additional licenses."
"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."
"We need some kind of a multi-cluster management solution from the Red Hat site."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is somewhat expensive."
"Oracle is a little more expensive right now, but not much compared to SAP. Oracle's prices are very much dependent on the scale of the project and how many users are there."
"Oracle Java Cloud Service is an expensive product."
"The model of pricing and buying licences is quite rigid. We are in the process of negotiating on demand pricing which will help us take advantage of the cloud as a whole."
"My company makes payments towards the licensing costs attached to OpenShift."
"The pricing is standard; the solution isn't particularly expensive or affordable."
"OpenShift is really good when we need to start, but once we get to a certain scale, it becomes too expensive."
"We had a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) license for all our servers' operating systems. By having multiple Red Hat products together, you can negotiate costs and leverage on having a sort of enterprise license agreement to reduce the overall outlay or TCO."
"We are currently using the open version, OKD. We plan to get the enterprise version in the future."
"This solution is fairly expensive but comes at an average cost compared to other solutions in the market."
"The pricing for OpenShift includes support and licensing, which costs approximately $400."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which PaaS Clouds solutions are best for your needs.
864,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
29%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Oracle Java Cloud Service?
I did a comparative study on the pricing between Oracle and SAP S/4HANA, but it was related to databases and in the areas associated with the clouds. I can tell that Oracle is a little more expensi...
What needs improvement with Oracle Java Cloud Service?
The security part of the tool is not so strong, making it an area I would like to see improved in the solution. When working with a cloud tool, it's never 100 percent secure and it is always someth...
How does OpenShift compare with Amazon AWS?
Open Shift makes managing infrastructure easy because of self-healing and automatic scaling. There is also a wonderful dashboard mechanism to alert us in case the application is over-committing or ...
Which would you recommend - Pivotal Cloud Foundry or OpenShift?
Pivotal Cloud Foundry is a cloud-native application platform to simplify app delivery. It is efficient and effective. The best feature is how easy it is to handle external services such as database...
What do you like most about OpenShift?
OpenShift facilitates DevOps practices and improves CI/CD workflows in terms of stability compared to Jenkins.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Avaya, ADNOC Distribution, DocuSign, Zamil Industrial Investment Company
UPS, Cathay Pacific, Hilton
Find out what your peers are saying about Oracle Java Cloud Service vs. Red Hat OpenShift and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
864,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.