We performed a comparison between Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and OpenShift based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."The most valuable feature of PingSafe is its integration with most of our technology stack, specifically all of our cloud platforms and ticketing software."
"We like the platform and its response time. We also like that its console is user-friendly as well as modern and sleek."
"PingSafe has a dashboard that can detect the criticality of a particular problem, whether it falls under critical, medium, or low vulnerability."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to gain deep visibility into the workloads inside containers."
"PingSafe's most valuable feature is its unified console."
"Support has been very helpful and provides regular feedback and help whenever needed. They've been very useful."
"We liked the search bar in PingSafe. It is a global search. We were able to get some insights from there."
"Cloud Native Security's most valuable features include cloud misconfiguration detection and remediation, compliance monitoring, a robust authentication security engine, and cloud threat detection and response capabilities."
"Has a good management feature monitored by the cloud service provider."
"It is easy to maintain the solution."
"It is appealing to us due to its complexity, which aligns well with our requirements."
"The setup was straightforward and it took one hour to deploy."
"Integration and automation are the best features of the solution."
"AKS is easy to use. We can scale up and down as needed with AKS, which saves us money on our cloud costs."
"The platform's high scalability is one of its biggest advantages."
"It is a stable solution."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"The most valuable feature is the high availability for the applications."
"The security features of OpenShift are strong when in use of role-based access."
"The product's initial setup is very easy, especially compared to AWS."
"We want to build a solution that can be deployable to any cloud because of client requirements and OpenShift allows us to do this."
"Key features are WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure and the git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure."
"This solution is providing a platform with OOTB features that are difficult to build from scratch."
"I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones."
"It took us a while to configure the software to work well in this type of environment, as the support documents were not always clear."
"The could improve their mean time to detect."
"One of our use cases was setting up a firewall for our endpoints, specifically for our remote users... We were hoping to utilize SentinelOne's firewall capabilities, but there were limitations on how many URLs we could implement. Because of those limitations on the number of URLs, we weren't able to utilize that feature in the way we had hoped to."
"With Cloud Native Security, we can't selectively enable or disable alerts based on our specific use case."
"There is no break-glass account feature. They should implement this as soon as possible because we can't implement SSO without a break-glass feature."
"One of the issues with the product stems from the fact that it clubs different resources under one ticket."
"In addition to our telecom and Slack channels, it would be helpful to receive Cloud Native Security security notifications in Microsoft Teams."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"It would be nice if they could handle the management of personal information more efficiently."
"The initial setup is complex."
"Its integration functions could be enhanced."
"The technical support could be faster."
"One area that could be improved is the Azure CLI. It would be beneficial if they could abstract some of the complexities related to deployment scripts and make them a part of Azure CLI."
"I would like to see Azure implement something like the K9 terminal for interacting with Kubernetes clusters. It's a user-friendly CLI interface."
"The product needs to support a UI dashboard. I have to execute every single command to check the status of services which takes time."
"There are a lot of features that should be included with the AKS."
"One area for improvement is the documentation. They need to make it a little bit more user-friendly. Also, if you compare certain features and the installation process with Rancher, Rancher is simpler."
"My team has found some bugs in OpenShift due to continuous integration, and this is an area for improvement in the platform. RedHat should fix the bugs. Another area for improvement in OpenShift is that upgrading clusters can be challenging, resulting in downtime. Application support also needs improvement in OpenShift because the platform doesn't support all applications in the cloud. I'd like upgraded storage in the next release of OpenShift, especially when I need to do a DR exercise. It would also be good if the platform allows mirroring with another cluster, or more portability in terms of moving applications to another cluster."
"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."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations."
"This solution could be improved by offering best practices on standardization and additional guidance on how to use this solution."
"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 tool lacks some features to make it compliant with Kubernetes"
More Singularity Cloud Security by SentinelOne Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is ranked 13th in Container Security with 32 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is rated 8.2, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) writes "Decreases administrative burdens and costs, has good diagnostic tools, and is easy to deploy". 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". Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, SUSE Rancher, Qualys VMDR and Tenable.io Container Security, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI).
We monitor all Container Security 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.
