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."
"The self-serving feature allows our developers to grab a container and complete testing."
"This solution provides a comprehensive way to scale up our ports and containers, without having to use multiple products."
"There's a lot of community support if you need to get help."
"We find the smooth, instant fail-safes in this solution to be very useful, as this allows for easy revival of dying quads or failing applications."
"Offers automated rollouts and storage orchestration"
"Kubernetes' most valuable features are scaling, deployment, and container management."
"It's scalable."
"Kubernetes offers a lot of great features such as scalability and great portability of applications."
"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."
"It increases developers' overhead."
"The platform could be more convenient to use."
"The configuration is a bit complicated."
"The setup and operation of the product should be simplified."
"It would be helpful if the UI were more graphical."
"The solution has some issues regarding availability during high loads. Worker nodes are sometimes unavailable, affecting the overall availability of the applications. This is a bug or underlying problem with the tool, and Azure and other providers are looking into improving this by releasing new versions of Kubernetes that fix some of the platform's issues."
"The lack of native support for billing and self-service capabilities is an area Kubernetes could improve. This requires the use of third-party integrations or managed services in order for customers to be able to deploy clusters on their own. It would be beneficial to have these features built-in into the Kubernetes platform."
"The first time it was a little bit complex to setup the solution."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Container Platform is ranked 21st 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.