We performed a comparison between Kubernetes and Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"I like that it gives you all the flexibility, for example, auto-scaling. Everything is figured out exactly right. It manages all your workloads without much intervention. It can scale in, scale out, and with security. Everything looks pretty good compared to the old legacy way of working."
"The most valuable feature of Kubernetes is container orchestration."
"The most valuable features of Kubernetes have been autoscaling and its resilience mechanisms."
"It's scalable."
"It is a stable and scalable product."
"Offers automated rollouts and storage orchestration"
"It has a complete loading feature set for replica site deployment."
"The scanning and support network."
"I think it's a pretty scalable tool...The solution's technical support has been pretty good."
"Technical support is good; they are fast and reliable."
"On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."
"Everything is packaged into OpenShift Container Platform."
"The architecture is the best. The solution is scalable if you are on a container-based solution."
"The console or the GUI of OpenShift is awesome. You can do a lot of things from there. You can perform administration tasks as well as development tasks."
"The best feature is the management for the port life cycle, which automatically recycles, pulls, and scales up and down based on needs and requests."
"They have built on top of Kubernetes. Most of the Kubernetes latest technology is already supported by the solution."
"It would be useful to have a basic and stable interface for monitoring and quick deployment purposes, especially when the deployments are big like a proof of concept or proof of technology. Currently, you need to use the Kubernetes console for all functionalities. It is not a quick-to-learn product if you are not from a Linux background. You need to be very skilled at Linux to learn it quickly. It took me two to three months because I mostly work with Microsoft products. For people who are not from a Linux background, the learning curve is a little bit longer."
"The pricing could be improved. It would be ideal if it was a bit less."
"The solution could be more stable."
"The solution can be quite complex for many users."
"The solution lacks some flexibility."
"It's good for bigger organizations, but for smaller organizations or a few workloads, it may be too heavy, not easy to deploy, and the ROI may be less because it requires a control plane, worker nodes, and multiple VMs to run."
"In the financial service sector, I'd rate scalability an eight out of ten. But do it in a controlled manner, not auto-scaling. If your application has a bug and you enable the autoscaler, it will spike your costs. If someone deploys an application with a bug, that's automatically a problem."
"There is not a large ecosystem surrounding Kubernetes, making it difficult to identify the right problem due to the vast number of solutions."
"It is difficult to deploy the OpenShift cluster in a bare-metal environment."
"The price needs to be improved in OpenShift Container Platform. When I choose this, the product is the first factor that we have to make a long analysis to compare the real cost for the other services. However, price is high."
"It has an option to install OpenShift without connecting it to the Internet. We tried this, but it was very hard. We couldn't manage to use that option. We wanted to use it offline for installations, updates, upgrades, etc., but we didn't find the offline installation and updates easy. This could be better."
"OpenShift Container Platform needs to work on integrations."
"There should be a simplification of the overall cluster environment. It should require fewer resources. Just to run a simple Hello World app, it requires about seven servers, and that's just crazy. I understand that it is fully redundant, but it's prohibitively expensive to get something simple going."
"OpenShift has certain restrictions in terms of managing the cluster when it's running on a public cloud. For example, identity and access management integration with the IM of AWS is quite difficult. It requires some open-source tools to integrate. This is one area where I always see room for improvement."
"From a networking perspective, the routing capability can be matured further. OpenShift doesn't handle restrictions on what kind of IPs are allowed, who can access them, and who cannot access them. So it is a simple matter of just using it with adequate network access, at the network level."
"We encounter difficulties while accessing the environment and managing the cluster. This particular area needs improvement."
More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kubernetes is ranked 4th in Container Management with 73 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 37 reviews. Kubernetes is rated 8.6, while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kubernetes writes "Container orchestrator that deploys our machine learning solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform writes "Provides automation that speeds up our process by 30% and helps us achieve zero downtime". Kubernetes is most compared with VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon EKS, Google Kubernetes Engine and HPE Ezmeral Container Platform, whereas Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon Elastic Container Service and HPE Ezmeral Container Platform. See our Kubernetes vs. Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform report.
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.
