We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure and Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud 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."The solution is completely scalable."
"The best feature in Microsoft Azure is that I don't have to change computers. I don't have to upgrade or if something breaks or a hard drive crashes. The lack of a physical aspect is the major feature for me."
"The best feature is it's easy to integrate with other Microsoft solutions."
"It's a great solution. It's so customizable. Every user can create dashboards to suit their needs. We can create and share them with our teammates easily, too."
"Much more intuitive and more visual than AWS. More obvious where things are and how to change their configurations, etc."
"We have found the most valuable feature to be the pricing calculator."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure is that it is easy to use."
"Storage has made remote access to files much more painless and easy."
"In general, customers appreciate its ability to run different workloads, manage applications through CI/CD pipelines like Jenkins, and leverage tools like Helm charts and Kako."
"The portability, moving from one platform to another, is easy."
"Our pipeline integrates various monitoring tools like Fortify for security checks. Once the pipeline processes the code, the finished product is deployed on Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud. We ensure application setup and recovery by utilizing two separate clusters on OpenShift."
"The solution offers the most robust Kubernetes orchestration available."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The deployment mechanism has become more dynamic with the use of the product."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is the UI console. We are able to receive the resources from the console directly."
"We have faced some challenges trying to deploy a new ESP application."
"The permissions and controls in the product are not easy to use."
"One key area for improvement is the Azure load balancer. Currently, it only supports virtual machines (VMs) running in the same virtual network (vNet) on the backend. They should definitely support machines or IPs running on-premises (prem) or in other Azure VNets. GCP and AWS already support that. So, Azure Load Balancer should support that as well"
"Azure could be improved with better security. The world is changing and their security could be better. Compared to five years ago, many of these cloud systems are a lot better, especially since you can set up a private cloud and configure your services to make it more secure."
"The documentation can be outdated and is not as clear in Microsoft Azure as it is in AWS or Google."
"There was a time when the solution was updated on their side and all of our functions stopped working. This issue could be worked on to prevent it from happening in the future. They must give us the information of when they are going to updates on the platform side so that we can take the appropriate measures on our side as well."
"Monitoring options should be more sophisticated, as there are dashboards on which a end user is able to pin a lot of charts and a number of web parts, but for example, I would love to have some option like in Operational Management Suite."
"The process by which our customers can switch from one subscription to another should be simplified."
"There is room for improvement in cluster-based queue monitoring and autoscaling."
"The effectiveness is satisfactory, and there haven't been any additional fees due to meeting demands. However, there's room for improvement in pricing, performance, and stability. Regarding the UI, it could be more user-friendly and integrated with various platforms. Currently, the UI lacks user-friendliness, especially for developers unfamiliar with container technology. Expecting them to create YAML files for security purposes is unrealistic without proper guidance or experience. This aspect needs improvement."
"The service mesh integrations could improve the solution."
"Technical support could be a bit better."
"The general purpose solution tries to cater to too many customers so it is heavy."
"The installation and configuration procedure should be simplified."
"Making it even more cost-effective could be explored."
More Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure is ranked 1st in PaaS Clouds with 299 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is ranked 16th in PaaS Clouds with 7 reviews. Microsoft Azure is rated 8.4, while Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure writes "Promotes clear, logical structures preventing impractical configurations and offers seamless integration ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud writes "Communication can be built on any cloud and that is a big advantage for customers". Microsoft Azure is most compared with Google Firebase, Amazon AWS, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Pivotal Cloud Foundry and SAP Cloud Platform, whereas Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is most compared with Google Cloud and Amazon AWS. See our Microsoft Azure vs. Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud 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.