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."I've found the stability to be excellent. The performance is good."
"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."
"This is a predictable and dependable service."
"The initial setup was very easy. It's quite straightforward. Deployment took about fifteen minutes. Everything is well organized."
"It is easy to deploy what you need for the initial setup"
"The price of IBM Cloud is most valuable for us. The service is personable and gives us a good rapport. I can't say it's the best, but it was enough for our needs."
"For non-complex applications, the IBM Cloud works fine and the price is much lower than the competitors."
"It is a scalable product. You can scale it up and down."
"The solution is easy to scale."
"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."
"We are able to operate client’s platform without downtime during security patch management each month and provide a good SLA (as scalability for applications is processed during heavy client website load, automatically)."
"The virtualization of my APIs means I no longer have to pay VMware large amounts of money to only run in-house solutions."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the security context constraint (SCC). The solution’s security throughout the stack is good. And security context constraints provide port-level security. It's a granular level of control, where you can give privileges to certain users to work on certain applications."
"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."
"Self-provisioning support saves a lot of time and unnecessary work from the system administrator who can use this time to run and monitor the infrastructure. For the developer, this means less time waiting for the provisioning and excellent flexibility for development, testing, and production. Also, in such systems it is easy for developers to monitor applications even after deployment."
"I would like to see a more user-friendly deployment process in the next release of this solution."
"It could be more secure."
"It will be challenging to implement if you do not have any experience."
"There is not a lot of support for this solution, which is something that needs to be improved."
"The product should offer more computing, similar to Amazon."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"They do not have a very good virtual network implemented, and the VPC is the most important feature that needs to be improved."
"They could improve on customizing reporting capabilities."
"Latency and performance are two areas of concern in OpenShift where improvements are required."
"There are challenges related to additional security layers, connectivity compliance for endpoints, and integration."
"OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets."
"The solution only offers support for one server."
"I think that OpenShift has too many commands for running services from the CLI, and the configuration files are a little complicated."
"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."
"We need some kind of a multi-cluster management solution from the Red Hat site."
"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."
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.