We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure and OpenShift based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: When choosing the best PaaS Cloud Solution, PeerSpot users rate Microsoft Azure as the best choice. Microsoft Azure provides robust PaaS options, such as robust platform and infrastructure services. The solution also functions extremely well as a SaaS and IaaS solution. Many users feel security and monitoring is lacking somewhat with OpenShift and that it should have better integrations with public clouds.
"The support is responsive and dedicated to SMEs."
"Azure Data Lake is useful. We are in the process of populating the data lake for our current project. Also, we are directly importing for Power BI to using PowerPlay."
"We use Microsoft Azure for operations, email, and office applications."
"The most valuable features are the interface and customizability."
"The user interface is very good for administrators."
"There are many useful features. We use web apps, so instead of starting a web server, we just have machines running some web services. This was helpful for us in terms of the scalability of the application. We also use Active Directory for authentication and some services for the data backup. It is a very good and reliable solution. It was easy to implement this solution. It fits very well into our plans and covers our needs to provide infrastructure in the cloud. The portal to configure new resources is very easy, and it is very easy to allocate new resources."
"Microsoft Azure has proven to be beneficial for our organization due to its quick deployment capabilities. Setting up virtual machines or any required infrastructure is fast."
"Azure has improved my organization because it is a new technology and so the customers who don't have enough knowledge about the cloud delegate the administration of their cloud infrastructure to us. We incorporate and add a new service to our product lineup about how to manage their Azure. It impacts our business because we're able to incorporate this new service."
"Self-provisioning support saves a lot of time and unnecessary work from the system administrator who can use this time to run and monitor the infrastructure. For the developer, this means less time waiting for the provisioning and excellent flexibility for development, testing, and production. Also, in such systems it is easy for developers to monitor applications even after deployment."
"The solution is easy to scale."
"OpenShift is based on Kubernetes and we try to use all the Kubernetes objects of OpenShift. We don't use features that are specific to OpenShift, except internal certificates for the services. The one feature that is missing from Kubernetes and that is really useful in OpenShift is the lifecycle of the cluster and the ease of installation. We use VMware and VMware integration internally with the OpenShift installer, which is very good. With OpenShift it's easy to spin up or scale out a cluster."
"The most valuable feature is the high availability for the applications."
"In terms of implementation, OpenShift is very user-friendly, which is an advantage. We are using it along with GitLab for implementing CI/CD pipelines. That's a feature that other products also have, but in OpenShift, we find it good."
"The stability has been good."
"The scalability of OpenShift combined with Kubernetes is good. At least from the software standpoint, it becomes quite easy to handle the scalability through configuration. You need to constantly monitor the underlying infrastructure and ensure that it has adequate provisioning. If you have enough infrastructure, then managing the scalability is quite easy which is done through configuration."
"The product's initial setup is very easy, especially compared to AWS."
"Microsoft Azure could improve by having the availability be 100%. Which is difficult, but not impossible."
"Their backup strategy is a little complex which racks up the VM to other sole storage areas. This should be improved."
"The process by which our customers can switch from one subscription to another should be simplified."
"The support team is not responding to my emails."
"The interface is not easy to use. I'd like to see them develop a better interface, more graphical information about the resource and the consumer."
"The solution is too expensive."
"One area where Microsoft Azure could improve is in offering a broader range of pre-built plugins and tools compared to AWS."
"The permissions and controls in the product are not easy to use."
"Documentation and technical support could be improved. The product is good, but when we raise a case with support—say we are having an image issue—the support is not really up to the mark. It is difficult to get support... When we raise a case, their support people will hesitate to get on a call or a screen-sharing session. That is a major drawback when it comes to OpenShift."
"This is a fairly expensive solution."
"Credential not hidden, so people on the same group can view it."
"The area for improvement is mostly in support for legacy applications."
"My team has found some bugs in OpenShift due to continuous integration, and this is an area for improvement in the platform. RedHat should fix the bugs. Another area for improvement in OpenShift is that upgrading clusters can be challenging, resulting in downtime. Application support also needs improvement in OpenShift because the platform doesn't support all applications in the cloud. I'd like upgraded storage in the next release of OpenShift, especially when I need to do a DR exercise. It would also be good if the platform allows mirroring with another cluster, or more portability in terms of moving applications to another cluster."
"We need some kind of a multi-cluster management solution from the Red Hat site."
"This solution could be improved by offering best practices on standardization and additional guidance on how to use this solution."
"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."
Microsoft Azure is ranked 1st in PaaS Clouds with 299 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Microsoft Azure is rated 8.4, while Red Hat OpenShift is rated 8.4. 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 writes "Provides us with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints". Microsoft Azure is most compared with Google Firebase, Amazon AWS, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Pivotal Cloud Foundry and IBM Public Cloud, whereas Red Hat OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI). See our Microsoft Azure vs. Red Hat 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.