We performed a comparison between Heroku and OpenShift based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two PaaS Clouds solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's easy to push a change and to deploy new things."
"I like the tool's scalability, CLI, and dashboards."
"We use Heroku to run generic data. We also use it for our customer development environment. It helps us to build and test websites."
"The solution's most valuable feature is the auto maintenance of databases."
"The platform is very Node.js-friendly, which is something that is important to us."
"What I found most valuable about this solution is that it's easy to use and integrate with GitHub actions."
"One of the best things about Heroku is that it is very easy and straightforward to deploy an application."
"Valuable for us was the fast deployment. This means the time to market is improved without pain for developers."
"OpenShift is based on Kubernetes and we try to use all the Kubernetes objects of OpenShift. We don't use features that are specific to OpenShift, except internal certificates for the services. The one feature that is missing from Kubernetes and that is really useful in OpenShift is the lifecycle of the cluster and the ease of installation. We use VMware and VMware integration internally with the OpenShift installer, which is very good. With OpenShift it's easy to spin up or scale out a cluster."
"The company had a product called device financing, where the company worked as a partner with Google. It allowed customers to take mobile phones on loan or via credit. When we migrated those services to OpenShift in February last year, we were able to sell over 100,000 devices in a single day, which was very good."
"The most valuable feature is the auto scalers for all microservices. The feature allows us to place request limits and it is much cheaper than AWS."
"The solution is easy to scale."
"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."
"There is a quick deployment of the application, and we can scale out efficiently."
"Security is also an important part of this solution. By default, things are running with limited privileges and securely confined to their own resources. This way, different users and projects can all use the same infrastructure."
"What I like best about OpenShift is that it can reduce some of the costs of having multiple applications because you can just move them into small container applications. For example, applications don't need to run for twenty days, only to be used up by Monday. Through OpenShift, you can move some of the small applications into any cloud. I also find the design of OpenShift good."
"We would like to be notified when something goes wrong in the process. When something is not working, we should get an alert."
"The tool's configuration is complex."
"Heroku had an authentication problem a few months ago, but they solved it."
"Their support is good, but they can improve their response time."
"I think this solution would be improved if free demos were available indefinitely."
"I improved the application performance by monitoring and adjusting the cleaner configuration to help set better lightweight limits on containers that run the app instances."
"Heroku doesn't support Docker images on the CI infrastructure."
"Heroku should increase its slug size limits."
"The interface could be simplified a bit more."
"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."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets."
"Its virtual upgrades are time-consuming."
"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 operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations."
"Some of the storage services and integrations with third-party tools should be made possible."
Heroku is ranked 13th in PaaS Clouds with 28 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Heroku is rated 8.4, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Heroku writes "Used for server deployment and provides auto maintenance of databases". 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". Heroku is most compared with Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Google App Engine, Pivotal Cloud Foundry and Amazon Lightsail, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and SUSE Cloud Application Platform. See our Heroku 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.