We performed a comparison between Google Kubernetes Engine 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."The solution is available across AWS, GCP and Azure and is seamless."
"We hardly have a breakdown. It's been very stable."
"The features are typical Kubernetes, but Google One offers a better GUI-based deployment. It's more sophisticated and integrates well with other services, providing a better customer experience."
"The initial setup was very easy because it's like a Google platform as a service. It's just one button to set it up. The deployment took only a few minutes."
"The product’s dashboard is very intuitive."
"It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable feature is container deployment."
"The main advantage of GKE is that it is a managed service. This means that Google is responsible for managing the master node in the Kubernetes cluster system. As a result, we can focus on deploying applications to the slaves, while Google handles any updates and security patches. The fact that GKE is fully integrated into the Google ecosystem, including solutions such as BigQuery and VertexAI. This makes it easier for us to integrate these tools into our process. This integration ultimately speeds up our time to market and reduces the time and effort spent on managing infrastructure. The managed aspect of GKE allows us to simply deploy and utilize it without having to worry about the technicalities of infrastructure management."
"Red Hat's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is good. It is a lightweight operating system. You don't have to worry about the security patches on the system. You can update the entire environment with security patches, which is a nice feature."
"I have found the ability to scale up is most valuable."
"I think it's a pretty scalable tool...The solution's technical support has been pretty good."
"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."
"Centralized control of container resources is most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is that the solution can be deployed in the cloud which removes the expense of a server."
"The most valuable feature for me in the OpenShift Container Platform is the option to manage different containers and environments and also being able to switch among them."
"The stack in the software supply chain is one of the main reasons that we use OpenShift. When I came to this company, we bought hardware from IBM named Bluemix, and they used ICP, which stands for IBM Cloud Private."
"The user interface is a bit confusing sometimes. You need to navigate between the various consoles we have. It's hard to figure out where things are. It's frustrating. The documentation could be a bit better."
"The console for this solution could be improved because it is very limited."
"There is room for improvement in the cluster updates process. Specifically, when managing both non-production and production clusters, we need a sequential functionality."
"The tool's configuration features need improvement."
"The solution does not have a visual interface."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's cost should be improved because it is high."
"I use the Firebase tool with GKE and it would be helpful if the solution can give notifications when we reach the budget limit."
"There are some security issues, but it might just be because we are not up to speed yet as much as we should be and so we haven't found it in the documentation yet. That's why I don't want to confuse this. Still, it could be a little bit easier to understand and implement."
"The stability needs improvement."
"OpenShift needs to improve their container storage."
"I want to see more incorporation of native automation features; then, we could write a code, deploy it directly to OpenShift, and allow it to take care of the automated process. Using this method, we could write one application and have elements copy/pasted to other applications in the development process."
"The product monitoring tool does not work for us."
"The solution needs to introduce open ID connect integration for role-based access control."
"Another thing that bugs me is that they removed the software in NFS storage. I don't understand why because this is a common type of storage. I am having problems with that, so I wish they would put it back."
"One area for improvement is that we can't currently run Docker inside a container, as it clashes with security consents. It would be good if we could change that."
"Things are there and the documentation is there, however, there still needs to be quick guides available."
More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 37 reviews. Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0, while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Google Kubernetes Engine writes "The auto-scaling feature helps during peak hours, but the support is not great". 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". Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, Kubernetes, Rancher Labs, VMware Tanzu Mission Control and Amazon Elastic Container Service, 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 NGINX Ingress Controller. See our Google Kubernetes Engine 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.
