We performed a comparison between IBM Public Cloud 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."The initial setup was very easy. It's quite straightforward. Deployment took about fifteen minutes. Everything is well organized."
"One of the features that I really like about IBM Cloud is the flexibility where you can order your own hardware."
"It is a scalable product. You can scale it up and down."
"For non-complex applications, the IBM Cloud works fine and the price is much lower than the competitors."
"What I like most in IBM Public Cloud is how easy it is to create serverless functions. They are called IBM functions, but in AWS, they are called Lambda functions. Those are pretty standard, and another thing I like the most is that you have fewer restrictions on the amount of data you can transfer across those functions. IBM Public Cloud is way more flexible than AWS. I also like that IBM Public Cloud is pretty straightforward to integrate. As long as you have all the tools IBM provides you, getting everything up and running is straightforward."
"An advantage of IBM Public Cloud is the bare metal server. We can take the bare metal server. It's not shared with anyone. We can deploy our applications without sharing them with anyone. That is an advantage of IBM Public Cloud."
"The most valuable feature of IBM Public Cloud is the AI integrations."
"The availability is second to none. Customer support is very good."
"Excellent GUI support, so one does not need to use the command line client for almost any tasks. Great support for building images directly from Git repositories with hooks."
"The solution provides a lot of flexibility to the application team for running their applications in the container platform, without needing to monitor the entire infrastructure all the time. It automatically scales and automatically self-heals. There is also a mechanism to alert the team in case it is over-committing or overutilizing the application."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the high availability for the applications."
"Valuable features include auto-recreate of pod if pod fails; fast rollback, with one click, to previous version."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"This solution is providing a platform with OOTB features that are difficult to build from scratch."
"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."
"An area for improvement in IBM Public Cloud is getting up-to-date information on how to set up everything. It's hard to find new documentation."
"The product should offer more computing, similar to Amazon."
"Maybe performance enhancers and reports could be better improved. If they do so, it would be better. Of all the drawbacks I saw, this would be the biggest enhancement."
"They do not have a very good virtual network implemented, and the VPC is the most important feature that needs to be improved."
"The solution needs to be more autonomous. It should let the DL go to allow for more jobs on the cloud. It could have a better interface as well."
"They could improve on customizing reporting capabilities."
"Normally, for any cloud, we get a lot of information on the web, but that is missing in the case of IBM Public Cloud. We need some technical support documents. That is the only thing missing in IBM Public Cloud."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The whole area around the hybrid cloud could be improved. I would like to deploy a Red Hat OpenShift cluster on-premise and on the cloud, then have Red Hat do the entire hybrid cloud management."
"Credential not hidden, so people on the same group can view it."
"We need some kind of a multi-cluster management solution from the Red Hat site."
"Documentation and technical support could be improved. The product is good, but when we raise a case with support—say we are having an image issue—the support is not really up to the mark. It is difficult to get support... When we raise a case, their support people will hesitate to get on a call or a screen-sharing session. That is a major drawback when it comes to OpenShift."
"The metrics in OpenShift can use improvement."
"The solution needs to support the new features in Kubernetes more quickly."
"I think that OpenShift has too many commands for running services from the CLI, and the configuration files are a little complicated."
"The interface could be simplified a bit more."
IBM Public Cloud is ranked 9th in PaaS Clouds with 16 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. IBM Public Cloud is rated 8.0, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Public Cloud writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and has helpful support". 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". IBM Public Cloud is most compared with Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Google Cloud and Dell ECS, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Google Cloud. See our IBM Public Cloud 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.