We performed a comparison between Amazon AWS and OpenShift based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Amazon AWS comes out on top in this comparison. Our reviewers agree that Amazon AWS is a high-performing and feature-rich solution with excellent customer support. OpenShift did come out on top in the Ease of Deployment category.
"It's very easy to use."
"Provisioning and resource administration include billing dashboards, which are very extensive."
"It integrates well."
"They provide cutting-edge features compared to other cloud vendors."
"Elasticity has always been AWS's mandate. The flexibility of their platform from a systems perspective lives up to its claims."
"Easy to access and secure, two important features."
"Amazon AWS has a better portfolio. They have an impressive technology and service portfolio."
"Amazon AWS has improved a lot on security and is very good. Additionally, You can integrate your own security into their AWS platform."
"Provides support throughout the whole platform."
"Valuable features include auto-recreate of pod if pod fails; fast rollback, with one click, to previous version."
"It is a stable platform."
"What I like best about OpenShift is that it can reduce some of the costs of having multiple applications because you can just move them into small container applications. For example, applications don't need to run for twenty days, only to be used up by Monday. Through OpenShift, you can move some of the small applications into any cloud. I also find the design of OpenShift good."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"Security is also an important part of this solution. By default, things are running with limited privileges and securely confined to their own resources. This way, different users and projects can all use the same infrastructure."
"Overall, the solution's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is excellent."
"The security is good."
"We have had some difficulty figuring out how to monitor how many EC2 instances have been networked into our entire enterprise. We usually try to create a diagram outside of AWS. The types of information we are trying to determine are, for example, what hardware devices are interconnected, and when was the interconnection made."
"I would like to receive some alerts when my consumption is getting out of the normal range."
"The problem with AWS is you have to keep up with the technology. If you don't stay up to date with the technology and its latest changes then you won't know what to use in your infrastructure."
"The use of this tool should be extended to Google and Apple operating systems."
"One of the problems that I have seen is that some of the products are not as mature as others."
"The technical support should be better than what is on offer right now."
"We would like the system documentation for configuring this solution to be improved, in order to provide better process clarity."
"I also use Google Cloud GCP and AWS cannot directly use the Azure EC2 consult. They could add that feature. Direct connection to the EC2 console server would be very useful."
"The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations."
"OpenShift could improve by providing the ability to integrate with public cloud platforms. This way we can easily use the services that these platforms offer. For instance, Amazon AWS. However, all the three major hyper-scalers solutions offer excellent DevOps and CI/CD tooling. If there was an easy way to integrate with them it would be beneficial. We need a way to easily integrate with the monitoring and dashboard services that they provide."
"One area for improvement is the documentation. They need to make it a little bit more user-friendly. Also, if you compare certain features and the installation process with Rancher, Rancher is simpler."
"The metrics in OpenShift can use improvement."
"OpenShift's storage management could be better."
"I want easier node management and more user-friendly scripts for installing master and worker nodes."
"It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory."
"An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift."
Amazon AWS is ranked 2nd in PaaS Clouds with 250 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Amazon AWS is rated 8.4, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Amazon AWS writes "Reliable with good security but is difficult to set up". 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". Amazon AWS is most compared with Linode, Microsoft Azure, SAP Cloud Platform, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) and Pivotal Cloud Foundry, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI). See our Amazon AWS 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.