We performed a comparison between Red Hat OpenShift and Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud 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."Key features are WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure and the git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure."
"I am impressed with the product's security features."
"The initial setup is simple, and OpenShift is open-source, so it's easy to install on any cloud platform."
"This solution is providing a platform with OOTB features that are difficult to build from scratch."
"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."
"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."
"It is a stable platform."
"Two stand-out features are the security model and value-add features that don't exist in Upstream Kubernetes."
"The portability, moving from one platform to another, is easy."
"The deployment mechanism has become more dynamic with the use of the product."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is the UI console. We are able to receive the resources from the console directly."
"In general, customers appreciate its ability to run different workloads, manage applications through CI/CD pipelines like Jenkins, and leverage tools like Helm charts and Kako."
"Our pipeline integrates various monitoring tools like Fortify for security checks. Once the pipeline processes the code, the finished product is deployed on Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud. We ensure application setup and recovery by utilizing two separate clusters on OpenShift."
"The solution offers the most robust Kubernetes orchestration available."
"The initial setup is easy."
"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."
"This solution could be improved by offering best practices on standardization and additional guidance on how to use this solution."
"An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift."
"Some of the storage services and integrations with third-party tools should be made possible."
"The latest 4.0 version of OpenShift disabled a few of the features we previously made use of, although this wasn't a huge deal."
"There have been some issues with security, in particular, that we had to address. At times they make it “clunky." I am quite confident these parameters will appear in the next releases. They have been reported as bugs and are actually in process."
"There are challenges related to additional security layers, connectivity compliance for endpoints, and integration."
"Technical support could be a bit better."
"The effectiveness is satisfactory, and there haven't been any additional fees due to meeting demands. However, there's room for improvement in pricing, performance, and stability. Regarding the UI, it could be more user-friendly and integrated with various platforms. Currently, the UI lacks user-friendliness, especially for developers unfamiliar with container technology. Expecting them to create YAML files for security purposes is unrealistic without proper guidance or experience. This aspect needs improvement."
"Making it even more cost-effective could be explored."
"There is room for improvement in cluster-based queue monitoring and autoscaling."
"The service mesh integrations could improve the solution."
"The general purpose solution tries to cater to too many customers so it is heavy."
"The installation and configuration procedure should be simplified."
More Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 54 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is ranked 16th in PaaS Clouds with 7 reviews. Red Hat OpenShift is rated 8.4, while Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Red Hat OpenShift writes "Provides us with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud writes "Communication can be built on any cloud and that is a big advantage for customers". Red Hat OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Google Cloud, whereas Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is most compared with Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure and Amazon AWS. See our Red Hat OpenShift vs. Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud 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.