We performed a comparison between Amazon AWS and OpenShift based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Amazon AWS comes out on top in this comparison. Our reviewers agree that Amazon AWS is a high-performing and feature-rich solution with excellent customer support. OpenShift did come out on top in the Ease of Deployment category.
"Amazon AWS is easy to use and in the past two years, I've never had any issues with scalability or stability."
"I like ETL, the EC2 platform, and Route 53. These features are a great complement to the basic infrastructure of any company. The AWS platform has many features, but the fundamental cloud infrastructure is the most important."
"User friendly solution."
"Its scalability is powerful. We are providing services for people to schedule an appointment for the vaccine and for COVID testing to see whether they are positive or negative. In one night, we can have 240,000 people in one minute to schedule an appointment. I am very happy with the scalability."
"Amazon AWS has a good Redshift database."
"The product is easy to use."
"We are mostly using EC2 compute and other resources. Most of our managed services are in AWS, which some of our clients prefer."
"It integrates well."
"Two stand-out features are the security model and value-add features that don't exist in Upstream Kubernetes."
"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."
"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."
"The developers seem to like the source-to-image feature. That makes it easy for them to deploy an application from code into containers, so they don't have to think about things. They take it straight from their code into a containerized application. If you don't have OpenShift, you have to build the container and then deploy the container to, say, EKS or something like that."
"I love to automate everything and OpenShift was been born for that. It takes care of the network layer itself and I don't need to dive into it; I can work on a top level. Our project has numerous services designed to run in Docker containers, and we have run almost all pieces in OpenShift."
"Scaling and uptime of the applications are positives."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the containers."
"The product's initial setup is very easy, especially compared to AWS."
"The customization could improve. However, it depends on the customization needed."
"While feasible, custom configuration will be more time consuming than standard."
"In some scenarios, Azure will support hybrid cloud better while AWS offers direct connection."
"We like everything about the solution except for the general price."
"The pricing of AWS is very unclear. They make it quite confusing."
"The price could be better."
"The price needs improvement."
"It has the technical support features, but they need to be improved. It has lots of users, but they need to be managed accordingly."
"Documentation and technical support could be improved. The product is good, but when we raise a case with support—say we are having an image issue—the support is not really up to the mark. It is difficult to get support... When we raise a case, their support people will hesitate to get on a call or a screen-sharing session. That is a major drawback when it comes to OpenShift."
"I want easier node management and more user-friendly scripts for installing master and worker nodes."
"The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications... They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore."
"The interface could be simplified a bit more."
"The product’s integration with Windows containers and other third-party products needs improvement."
"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 monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"The solution only offers support for one server."
Amazon AWS is ranked 2nd in PaaS Clouds with 250 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Amazon AWS is rated 8.4, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Amazon AWS writes "Reliable with good security but is difficult to set up". 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". Amazon AWS is most compared with Linode, Microsoft Azure, SAP Cloud Platform, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) and Pivotal Cloud Foundry, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI). See our Amazon AWS 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.