We performed a comparison between Amazon Elastic Container Service 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 tool helps us with maneuverability. Its most valuable feature is autoscaling."
"The product's initial setup was very straightforward and not complex."
"Amazon EC2 Container Service has multiple valuable features like load balancers and autoscalers."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its scalability."
"Implementing the product has helped me monitor the parameters. I utilize tools like CloudWatch and AWS systems to track these parameters. If any issues arise, I alert our developer team to address and resolve them. The product helps to have a global file system. Also, it helps in data replication from region to region."
"The solution has good performance."
"Amazon EC2 Container Service is a stable solution."
"I like the per-second billing."
"The solution is stable. However, it depends on the integrations of the solution on how stable it will be, such as what tools you integrate with."
"Dashboards... give us all the details we need to see about the microservices."
"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."
"It is very lightweight and can be deployed very fast, especially when it comes to containers."
"The tool's most valuable features include high availability, scalability, and security. Other features like advanced cluster management, advanced cluster security, and Red Hat Quay make it powerful for businesses. It also comes with features like OpenShift Virtualization."
"The initial setup process is easy."
"Centralized control of container resources is most valuable."
"The usability and the developer experience. The platform has a centralized consultant that is easy to use for our development, operations and security teams."
"The pricing could be a bit better."
"EC2 is not self-explanatory enough."
"Support could be better with response time and knowledge of staff."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"For Amazon EC2 Container Service, providing the ability for users to select specific processor, memory, disk, and interface types might be an ideal feature. But, the practicality of offering all possible physical combinations is nearly impossible due to the underlying physical machines. AWS and Azure organize options into groups based on essential components like powerful processors or critical interfaces, considering physical restrictions. While expanding these choices is conceivable, it may not be feasible from a financial and practical perspective. Customers generally comprehend this limitation, as even in their own data centers, exact physical machine requirements are often a result of a combination of factors such as price, availability, and new machine generations."
"The documentation and usage for the users can be better because for new users it can be very hard to understand and use the solution. They can add small images and accessories."
"The solution can still be expensive, even with per-second billing."
"It's a complex tool and should be simplified."
"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."
"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 support costs are too high."
"The initial setup can be hard."
"It is difficult to deploy the OpenShift cluster in a bare-metal environment."
"Getting the solution quickly and troubleshooting quickly are both areas where I think it needs some work."
"OpenShift needs to improve their container storage."
"There should be a simplification of the overall cluster environment. It should require fewer resources. Just to run a simple Hello World app, it requires about seven servers, and that's just crazy. I understand that it is fully redundant, but it's prohibitively expensive to get something simple going."
More Amazon Elastic Container Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon Elastic Container Service is ranked 8th in Container Management with 46 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 37 reviews. Amazon Elastic Container Service is rated 8.4, while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon Elastic Container Service writes "An easy to compute solution that can be used to take complete workloads to the cloud". 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". Amazon Elastic Container Service is most compared with Microsoft Azure Container Service, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Google Kubernetes Engine and Linode, whereas Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Rancher Labs and Kubernetes. See our Amazon Elastic Container Service 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.
