We performed a comparison between Google Kubernetes Engine and Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I am impressed with the product's output scaling."
"Stability is perfect for me."
"The most valuable feature of Google Kubernetes Engine is how you can automatically scale and load balance."
"The deployment of the cluster is very easy."
"It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best."
"We used automation for the initial setup. It was okay. So it wasn't too complex."
"It is easy to use and deploy."
"The solution simplified deployment, making it more automated. Previously, Docker required manual configuration, often done by developers on their computers. However, with Google Kubernetes Engine, automation extends to configuration, deployment, scalability, and viability, primarily originating from Docker rather than Kubernetes. Its most valuable feature is the ease of configuration."
"The initial setup process is easy."
"The usability and the developer experience. The platform has a centralized consultant that is easy to use for our development, operations and security teams."
"On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."
"It is very lightweight and can be deployed very fast, especially when it comes to containers."
"The software is user-friendly and straightforward to use, which is favorable to a developer."
"The operating system has a live update and is more secure than any other. It's made for Atomic OS, a lightweight OS new to the market. I also like the source-to-image capabilities. The customer can directly deploy their applications from the repository. It's a highly flexible and easy way to deploy into production."
"The solution's security throughout the stack and the software supply chain is very reliable. When it was on-prem, it was by default secured by our company firewalls and security tools, and now it's in the cloud, which has its security and systems in place. This provides stability to our infrastructure."
"The banking transactions, inquiries, and account opening have been the most valuable."
"Their documentation is a little here and there. Sometimes, the information is not clear or updated. Their documentation should be a little bit better."
"While the GKE cluster is secure, application-level security is an essential aspect that needs to be addressed. The security provided by GKE includes the security of communication between nodes within the cluster and the basic features of Kubernetes security. However, these features may not be sufficient for the security needs of an enterprise. Additional security measures must be added to ensure adequate protection. It has become a common practice to deploy security tools within a Kubernetes cluster. It would be ideal if these tools were included as part of the package, as this is a standard requirement in the industry. Thus, application-level security should be integrated into GKE for improved security measures."
"One of the things I missed a bit is the visibility and availability of solutions. If I compare it to a different solution, it is a bit behind."
"There is room for improvement in this solution. For example, auto-scaling can be complex. We expect it to be easier to set up and manage, even for our customers."
"There are some security issues, but it might just be because we are not up to speed yet as much as we should be and so we haven't found it in the documentation yet. That's why I don't want to confuse this. Still, it could be a little bit easier to understand and implement."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's cost should be improved because it is high."
"The console for this solution could be improved because it is very limited."
"The pricing could be more competitive. It should be cheaper."
"There is room for improvement with integration."
"In my experience, the issues are not always simply technical. They do stem from technical challenges, but they struggle with the topic of adoption. When you encounter all of the customer pull, there are normally several tiers of your client pop that can adopt either the fundamental features or a little more advanced ones. The majority of the time, the challenge is determining how to drive adoption, how to sell the product to the customer, and how much time they can spend to really utilize those advanced features. If we get into much more detail, but this is from my perspective as the platform engineer and not the end customer, the ability of the end user to be able to debug potential issues with their application That is arguably the most important, let's say, work throughput in my area."
"It is difficult to deploy the OpenShift cluster in a bare-metal environment."
"The monitoring and logging could be improved."
"The complexity of the installation could be reduced. While we got the necessary support, the instructions could be clearer."
"The solution does not work on a route-wise NFS."
"The product's interface is a bit buggy."
"We encounter difficulties while accessing the environment and managing the cluster. This particular area needs improvement."
More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 37 reviews. Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0, while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Google Kubernetes Engine writes "The auto-scaling feature helps during peak hours, but the support is not great". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform writes "Provides automation that speeds up our process by 30% and helps us achieve zero downtime". Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, Kubernetes, Rancher Labs, VMware Tanzu Mission Control and Amazon Elastic Container Service, whereas Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon Elastic Container Service and NGINX Ingress Controller. See our Google Kubernetes Engine vs. Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform report.
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.
