We performed a comparison between Cisco Container Platform and Kubernetes based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Amazon Web Services (AWS), VMware and others in Container Management."The most valuable feature is definitely the fact that you can use a single platform to deploy to different resource providers. Right now, the version I'm using has vSphere and AWS, but I know in the future they're planning on adding more. The ability to deploy clusters on-prem or to any number of public cloud providers is really valuable because you don't need to relearn or switch platforms to switch resource providers."
"Kubernetes' integration with AWS Lambda is great. I barely had to write any code to connect from EKS to Lambda, so Kubernetes is programmer friendly."
"This solution provides a comprehensive way to scale up our ports and containers, without having to use multiple products."
"Once you get it configured properly, it's a stable solution."
"The self-serving feature allows our developers to grab a container and complete testing."
"There's a lot of community support if you need to get help."
"There are many good features. I feel that the scale-out features, like replica sets, are very good. The number of running containers can be autoscaled."
"The most valuable feature of the platform is the ability to load some of the containers that were previously managed by humans."
"There are features that come out of the box with Kubernetes, with respect to scaling, reliability, etc. It's the leading container management platform. There are other competing ones, but this is the leading one. It has multiple instances of the application running. If one of them goes down, the other one automatically spins up."
"One thing that is a little bit annoying about Cisco Container Platform is that for each cluster you create you have to go through the same web form each time. If you're creating two identical clusters, you still have to go through that web form twice."
"There are several areas where Kubernetes could improve."
"It's complex to manage and requires specialists."
"They should update Kubernetes more regularly."
"There is a feature called Terraform and, based on the reviews I have read, it could be improved."
"The network policies and RBAC management across multi-clusters could be improved. This is an issue we're trying to solve in the market."
"The virtual machines should be GUI-based"
"Kubernetes is a complex solution. The product needs to be more manageable and user-friendly."
"I'm expecting more improvement on the UI development side, which can be reflected in each object that is part of Kubernetes, like the Pod, deployment set, ReplicaSet, ConfigMap, Secrets, and PersistentVolume."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Container Platform is ranked 20th in Container Management while Kubernetes is ranked 4th in Container Management with 73 reviews. Cisco Container Platform is rated 8.0, while Kubernetes is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco Container Platform writes "Enables the deployment/management of Kubernetes clusters from multiple resource providers at one location". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kubernetes writes "Container orchestrator that deploys our machine learning solutions". Cisco Container Platform is most compared with Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform and VMware Tanzu Mission Control, whereas Kubernetes is most compared with VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon EKS, Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform and NGINX Ingress Controller.
See our list of best Container Management vendors.
We monitor all Container Management 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.