We performed a comparison between Cisco Container Platform and OpenShift Container Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Amazon Web Services (AWS), VMware and others in Container Management."The most valuable feature is definitely the fact that you can use a single platform to deploy to different resource providers. Right now, the version I'm using has vSphere and AWS, but I know in the future they're planning on adding more. The ability to deploy clusters on-prem or to any number of public cloud providers is really valuable because you don't need to relearn or switch platforms to switch resource providers."
"On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."
"The most valuable are security features, particularly when operating in the cloud."
"It’s user-friendly."
"Dashboards... give us all the details we need to see about the microservices."
"I have found the ability to scale up is most valuable."
"I think it's a pretty scalable tool...The solution's technical support has been pretty good."
"OpenShift is a user-friendly container platform with a solid GUI that helps you follow what is going on and gives you an overview of all your clusters. It's more user-friendly than the Kubernetes itself. The interface helps you learn the platform and provides access to some features or specific comments."
"The banking transactions, inquiries, and account opening have been the most valuable."
"One thing that is a little bit annoying about Cisco Container Platform is that for each cluster you create you have to go through the same web form each time. If you're creating two identical clusters, you still have to go through that web form twice."
"It is difficult to deploy the OpenShift cluster in a bare-metal environment."
"My impression is that this solution is pretty expensive so I think the pricing plan could improve."
"The setup process is not great."
"OpenShift has certain restrictions in terms of managing the cluster when it's running on a public cloud. For example, identity and access management integration with the IM of AWS is quite difficult. It requires some open-source tools to integrate. This is one area where I always see room for improvement."
"Whenever we onboard or deploy services that talk to Oracle Database, they take a lot of time to become active and serve the incoming request, so it would be good to see some improvement here. This could be an OpenShift issue or an internal network problem within our organization."
"Getting the solution quickly and troubleshooting quickly are both areas where I think it needs some work."
"The product monitoring tool does not work for us."
"Container Platform could be improved if we could aggregate logs out of the box instead of having to do it through integrations with other products."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Container Platform is ranked 20th in Container Management while OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 36 reviews. Cisco Container Platform is rated 8.0, while OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Container Platform writes "Enables the deployment/management of Kubernetes clusters from multiple resource providers at one location". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenShift Container Platform writes "Provides automation that speeds up our process by 30% and helps us achieve zero downtime". Cisco Container Platform is most compared with Kubernetes and VMware Tanzu Mission Control, whereas OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon Elastic Container Service and Portainer.
See our list of best Container Management vendors.
We monitor all Container Management 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.
