We performed a comparison between Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and OpenShift based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."It is easy to maintain the solution."
"The platform's high scalability is one of its biggest advantages."
"Azure Kubernetes Service is pretty robust in terms of scalability and auto-scaling fixes."
"The serverless capability and auto scale feature are the most valuable."
"I found the Helm deployment feature of the solution valuable."
"Compliance is easy right out-of-the-box with integration to Azure Security, Azure Active Directory, and Azure Policies."
"Has a good management feature monitored by the cloud service provider."
"We like how easy it is to create the resources in this solution, thanks to how easy the UI is to use."
"There is a quick deployment of the application, and we can scale out efficiently."
"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 most valuable feature is the high availability for the applications."
"The scalability of OpenShift combined with Kubernetes is good. At least from the software standpoint, it becomes quite easy to handle the scalability through configuration. You need to constantly monitor the underlying infrastructure and ensure that it has adequate provisioning. If you have enough infrastructure, then managing the scalability is quite easy which is done through configuration."
"The stability has been good."
"Its interface is good. The other part is the seamless integration with the stack that I have. Because my stack is mostly of Red Hat, which is running on top of VMware virtualization, I have had no issues with integrating both of these and trying to install them. We had a seamless integration with the other non-Red Hat products as well."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is the great customer service and the ability for our team to get assistance when we need it."
"I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones."
"I would like to see Azure implement something like the K9 terminal for interacting with Kubernetes clusters. It's a user-friendly CLI interface."
"Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is not up to optimal standards when it comes to capturing logs and visualization."
"I would like to see a graphical user interface."
"It just loses out because you have less access to it programmatically, with less technical or customizable access."
"This is a fairly expensive solution, which can make it prohibitive for smaller organizations."
"There are some limitations with the tutor version, particularly in terms of using a lot of free audio. The private level also has restrictions, limiting the number of audio files you can access to just 50. If you want more, you need to contact support."
"The product needs to support a UI dashboard. I have to execute every single command to check the status of services which takes time."
"Unfortunately, when a microservice fails, Azure can take up to 60 seconds to broadcast an alert to the monitoring agents."
"It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory."
"The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations."
"One area for improvement is the documentation. They need to make it a little bit more user-friendly. Also, if you compare certain features and the installation process with Rancher, Rancher is simpler."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"I think that OpenShift has too many commands for running services from the CLI, and the configuration files are a little complicated."
"My team has found some bugs in OpenShift due to continuous integration, and this is an area for improvement in the platform. RedHat should fix the bugs. Another area for improvement in OpenShift is that upgrading clusters can be challenging, resulting in downtime. Application support also needs improvement in OpenShift because the platform doesn't support all applications in the cloud. I'd like upgraded storage in the next release of OpenShift, especially when I need to do a DR exercise. It would also be good if the platform allows mirroring with another cluster, or more portability in terms of moving applications to another cluster."
"Not a ten because it's not a standard solution and the endpoint protection user has to prepare with documentation or have training from other people. It's not easy to start because it's not like other solutions."
"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."
More Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is ranked 13th in Container Security with 32 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is rated 8.2, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) writes "Decreases administrative burdens and costs, has good diagnostic tools, and is easy to deploy". 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". Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, SUSE Rancher, Qualys VMDR, Tenable.io Container Security and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI).
We monitor all Container Security 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.