We compared Amazon EKS and OpenShift Container Platform based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Amazon EKS is praised for its strong integration with AWS services, seamless scaling, security measures, and simple Kubernetes cluster management. Users appreciate the reliable and flexible application deployment. On the other hand, OpenShift Container Platform is recognized for its seamless system integration, resource management, security measures, and application scalability. Both platforms offer competitive pricing and flexible licensing, excellent customer support, and positive ROI. Areas for improvement in Amazon EKS include documentation and cost optimization, while OpenShift could enhance its user interface, system performance, resource management, and language support.
Features: Some valuable features of Amazon EKS include seamless integration with AWS services, efficient scaling capabilities, user-friendly interface, strong security measures, excellent customer support, and simplified management. On the other hand, OpenShift Container Platform stands out for its seamless integration with existing systems, efficient resource management, robust security measures, versatile customization options, and ease of scaling applications.
Pricing and ROI: Amazon EKS has positive feedback on its pricing, setup cost, and licensing. Users appreciate competitive pricing, easy setup, and no significant costs. OpenShift Container Platform also receives positive feedback on reasonable pricing, straightforward setup, and flexible licensing., Compared to OpenShift Container Platform, Amazon EKS users have reported increased efficiency, cost savings, valuable resource optimization, and seamless deployment. OpenShift Container Platform users have praised its improvements in resource utilization, scalability, efficiency, and cost savings, resulting in increased productivity and revenue growth. Both platforms optimize operations and enhance business performance.
Room for Improvement: Amazon EKS could improve its documentation and tutorials, as well as enhance scalability and optimize costs. OpenShift Container Platform should focus on UI enhancements, system performance improvements, resource management, and supporting more programming languages.
Deployment and customer support: According to user reviews, the duration required for setting up and implementing a new tech solution in Amazon EKS is mentioned as a week for both deployment and setup phases. On the other hand, OpenShift Container Platform shows a significant variation in time, ranging from three months for deployment and an additional week for setup, to just a week for both deployment and setup. Context is important to consider., Amazon EKS excels in customer service with prompt and helpful assistance, excellent communication, and efficient problem-solving. OpenShift Container Platform also receives positive feedback, with promptness, responsiveness, and effective solutions.
The summary above is based on 62 interviews we conducted recently with Amazon EKS and OpenShift Container Platform users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"We do not have to do a lot of administration, such as create virtual machines, or worry about our controllers or nodes going down because the solution is fully managed by Amazon."
"Amazon EKS is very scalable."
"What I found most valuable in Amazon EKS is its maturity as a cloud computing technology."
"The product's most valuable features are scalability, observability, and performance."
"The solution is easy-to-set up."
"It's a faster solution to adopt on native applications."
"The tool works well with the nodes in AWS. It's scalability is also good in terms of architecture."
"I like the scalability they're currently providing. Integration was very easy. It was a good experience."
"More tools are available in OpenShift Container Platform to maintain and manage the clusters."
"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 platform is easy to scale as it supports Windows worker node."
"The most valuable features are the monitoring and logging functionalities."
"OpenShift is a user-friendly container platform with a solid GUI that helps you follow what is going on and gives you an overview of all your clusters. It's more user-friendly than the Kubernetes itself. The interface helps you learn the platform and provides access to some features or specific comments."
"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."
"The banking transactions, inquiries, and account opening have been the most valuable."
"The architecture is the best. The solution is scalable if you are on a container-based solution."
"The solution could be improved by adding monitoring, filtering, and logging capabilities to its current CloudWatch features."
"A cluster is required on-premises, which takes a lot of time."
"The graphical user interface could be better."
"I would like to see a cloud setup bank management feature."
"They should include some essential configuration features to it."
"The documentation part of the product is an area of concern that needs to be made easier from an improvement perspective."
"I would like to see it a little more stable, more operational, and more convenient to develop."
"The dashboard needs to be more user-friendly."
"The product monitoring tool does not work for us."
"The monitoring and logging could be improved."
"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."
"We've encountered challenges when transitioning applications between these environments."
"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."
"Whenever we onboard or deploy services that talk to Oracle Database, they take a lot of time to become active and serve the incoming request, so it would be good to see some improvement here. This could be an OpenShift issue or an internal network problem within our organization."
"The setup process is not great."
"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."
Amazon EKS is ranked 2nd in Container Management with 39 reviews while OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 36 reviews. Amazon EKS is rated 8.6, while OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon EKS writes "Supports multiple tools and has a straightforward setup process ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenShift Container Platform writes "Provides automation that speeds up our process by 30% and helps us achieve zero downtime". Amazon EKS is most compared with VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Kubernetes, Rancher Labs, Linode and HashiCorp Nomad, whereas OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon Elastic Container Service, Rancher Labs and Kubernetes. See our Amazon EKS vs. 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.