We performed a comparison between IBM Cloud Private and Pivotal Cloud Foundry 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."The most valuable attribute is the platform's ability to consistently deliver high reliability."
"Excellent technical support."
"We have control of the ESXi."
"The product's framework is good, it integrates well with API Connect, and the private cloud allows for use in any location."
"Our core banking process was monolithic. To address this, we transitioned to a microservices-based architecture. Leveraging Microsoft technologies, including Terminals version 23, we’ve revamped our banking operations. Not all services are microservices; some remain monolithic for simplicity. Containerization is pivotal, with OpenShift (based on Kubernetes and Docker) managing our microservices."
"It supports CI/CD, and is integrated with the CI/CD very well."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry is very easy to use compared to other cloud technologies. It has a very good performance."
"The most valuable features of Pivotal Cloud Foundry are its ease of use and the command line interface has the ability to push instances to the cloud easily."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry is very robust, especially for building Java."
"PCF is open, so the applications run really smoothly and with little downtime."
"We find its stability and scalability valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Pivotal Cloud Foundry is the UI, it is easy to use."
"Stability is not a concern with this product."
"I've noticed that the satellite services layer requires some improvement compared to platforms like Azure or Microsoft. While it's in development, I believe the satellite layer has room for enhancement. Additionally, the DevOps layer could benefit from closer integrations, especially for using external applications like Jenkins."
"lacking in multi-cloud management."
"The support and pricing need to improve."
"Auto-scaling and managing pod scaling in the microservices architecture, a core feature of IBM Cloud Private, can pose challenges, especially when dealing with larger volumes of traffic."
"One issue with the solution is latency because there is lag time when we connect."
"The Pivotal Cloud Foundry's initial setup has a learning curve for my team, but it was easy to use."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry could improve on the technology it is a bit complex."
"In the next release, I would like to see easy integration with external tools."
"The user interface should be simpler to navigate because it t can take time for users to learn it."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry doesn't have certain advanced features."
"It is not straightforward to setup."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry could improve the documentation. They are good, but they could improve more. Additionally, it would be beneficial if there were more use case examples."
"There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the future of Pivotal Cloud Foundry."
IBM Cloud Private is ranked 18th in PaaS Clouds with 5 reviews while Pivotal Cloud Foundry is ranked 7th in PaaS Clouds with 15 reviews. IBM Cloud Private is rated 6.8, while Pivotal Cloud Foundry is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM Cloud Private writes "Reliable platform with significant challenges related to performance capabilities when subjected to high traffic loads". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pivotal Cloud Foundry writes "Easy to use, simple to sign-in, but lacking graphical interface". IBM Cloud Private is most compared with OpenShift, Amazon AWS and Google App Engine, whereas Pivotal Cloud Foundry is most compared with OpenShift, Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, Google Cloud and Mendix. See our IBM Cloud Private vs. Pivotal Cloud Foundry 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.