We performed a comparison between Cloud Foundry and Red Hat 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."My favorite component of IBM's solution is Node-RED, which greatly shortens the amount of time required to develop, test, and deploy new applications."
"IBM is the only vendor to offer integration with blockchain for smart contract development."
"Cloud Foundry builds the runtime environment directly without requiring dependency management from the user."
"It's cloud agnostic and the containerization and security features are outstanding."
"I would recommend Red Hat OpenShift, especially for its automation capabilities."
"I am impressed with the product's security features."
"We have found the cluster management function to be very good with this product."
"There is a quick deployment of the application, and we can scale out efficiently."
"The stability has been good."
"I love to automate everything and OpenShift was been born for that. It takes care of the network layer itself and I don't need to dive into it; I can work on a top level. Our project has numerous services designed to run in Docker containers, and we have run almost all pieces in OpenShift."
"Its security is most valuable. It's by default secure, which is very important."
"After the initial excitement period with Node-RED is over, you crave the need of additional integrations to third-party services."
"In IBM Cloud, the product has been deprecated in favor of Kubernetes, which is a more complicated infrastructure to manage."
"The solution needs to support the new features in Kubernetes more quickly."
"The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications... They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore."
"We experienced issues around desktop security, that stopped us implementing a new feature that had been developed."
"The tool lacks some features to make it compliant with Kubernetes"
"OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"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."
"It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory."
Cloud Foundry is ranked 21st in PaaS Clouds with 2 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 54 reviews. Cloud Foundry is rated 5.0, while Red Hat OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cloud Foundry writes "Quick to deploy but being deprecated by IBM and should be merged with Kubernetes ". On the other hand, 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". Cloud Foundry is most compared with Pivotal Cloud Foundry, VMware Tanzu Application Service, Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure, whereas Red Hat OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Google Cloud. See our Cloud Foundry vs. Red Hat 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.