We performed a comparison between Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and OpenShift based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."The most valuable feature of the solution is the diagnostic service."
"The solution is a managed Kubernetes, so much of the maintenance in the control plane is handled automatically by the cloud service provider."
"The platform's high scalability is one of its biggest advantages."
"The serverless capability and auto scale feature are the most valuable."
"The advantage of AKS is somewhat greater than that of Kubernetes, such as those provided by Google Cloud or AWS. However, the unique benefit offered by Microsoft is its robust CI/CD capabilities, along with the Azure feature for building workflows. When you combine the entire ecosystem, AKS becomes an excellent choice, particularly for enterprise applications."
"The tool is budget-friendly."
"The most valuable feature is the autoscaling and self-healing."
"Azure Kubernetes Service is pretty robust in terms of scalability and auto-scaling fixes."
"The solution provides a lot of flexibility to the application team for running their applications in the container platform, without needing to monitor the entire infrastructure all the time. It automatically scales and automatically self-heals. There is also a mechanism to alert the team in case it is over-committing or overutilizing the application."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is the great customer service and the ability for our team to get assistance when we need it."
"Overall, the solution's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is excellent."
"The security is good."
"The developers seem to like the source-to-image feature. That makes it easy for them to deploy an application from code into containers, so they don't have to think about things. They take it straight from their code into a containerized application. If you don't have OpenShift, you have to build the container and then deploy the container to, say, EKS or something like that."
"Valuable features include auto-recreate of pod if pod fails; fast rollback, with one click, to previous version."
"The security features of OpenShift are strong when in use of role-based access."
"Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is not up to optimal standards when it comes to capturing logs and visualization."
"The solution's cost could be cheaper."
"There is room for improvement in automation processes, as well."
"Its integration functions could be enhanced."
"Configuration management and troubleshooting performance issues are difficult to solve and could be made easier."
"The solution's logs have room for improvement."
"The engineering team can reduce the management of the platform itself by improving the data plane part of the system to upload more management."
"I would like to see a graphical user interface."
"There are challenges related to additional security layers, connectivity compliance for endpoints, and integration."
"The product’s integration with Windows containers and other third-party products needs improvement."
"An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift."
"I want easier node management and more user-friendly scripts for installing master and worker nodes."
"The metrics in OpenShift can use improvement."
"Autoscaling is a very unique feature, but it could be useful to have more options based on traffic statistics, for example, via Prometheus. So, there should be more ready solutions to autoscale based on specific applications."
"One of the features that I've observed in Tanzu Mission Control is that I can manage multiple Kubernetes environments. For instance, one of my lines of business is using OpenShift OKD; another one wants to use Google Anthos, and somebody else wants to use VMware Tanzu. If I have to manage all these, Tanzu Mission Control is giving me the opportunity to completely manage all of my Kubernetes clusters, whereas, with OpenShift, I can only manage a particular area. I can't manage other Kubernetes clusters. I would like to have the option to manage all Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift."
"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."
More Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is ranked 13th in Container Security with 32 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is rated 8.2, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) writes "Decreases administrative burdens and costs, has good diagnostic tools, and is easy to deploy". 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". Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, SUSE Rancher, Qualys VMDR, Tenable.io Container Security and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI).
We monitor all Container Security 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.
