We performed a comparison between Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Red Hat 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."It is pretty easy to integrate with this platform. When properly integrated, it monitors end-to-end."
"When creating cloud infrastructure, Cloud Native Security evaluates the cloud security parameters and how they will impact the organization's risk. It lets us know whether our security parameter conforms to international industry standards. It alerts us about anything that increases our risk, so we can address those vulnerabilities and prevent attacks."
"All the features we use are equal and get the job done."
"The tool identifies issues quickly."
"It used to guide me about an alert. There is something called an alert guide. I used to click on the alert guide, and I could read everything. I could read about the alert and how to resolve it. I used to love that feature."
"We liked the search bar in PingSafe. It is a global search. We were able to get some insights from there."
"The solution is a good alerting tool."
"Cloud Native Security offers attack path analysis."
"The solution's technical support is excellent."
"The solution is a managed Kubernetes, so much of the maintenance in the control plane is handled automatically by the cloud service provider."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the diagnostic service."
"It is a stable solution."
"We find the container orchestration tool that this solution provides to be very valuable."
"Has a good management feature monitored by the cloud service provider."
"The serverless capability and auto scale feature are the most valuable."
"Azure Kubernetes Service is pretty robust in terms of scalability and auto-scaling fixes."
"I would recommend Red Hat OpenShift, especially for its automation capabilities."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the security context constraint (SCC). The solution’s security throughout the stack is good. And security context constraints provide port-level security. It's a granular level of control, where you can give privileges to certain users to work on certain applications."
"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."
"Scaling and uptime of the applications are positives."
"OpenShift offers robust tools for monitoring application traffic, allowing us to analyze client requests and other business-related metrics."
"We have found the cluster management function to be very good with this product."
"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."
"There should be more documentation about the product."
"Implementing single sign-on requires a pre-class account feature, which is currently not available."
"A beneficial improvement for PingSafe would be integration with Jira, allowing for a more streamlined ticketing system."
"If I had to pick a complaint, it would be the way the hosts are listed in the tool. You have different columns separated by endpoint name, Cloud Account, and Cloud Instances ID. I wish there was something where we could change the endpoint name and not use just the IP address. We would like to have custom names or our own names for the instances. If I had a complaint, that would be it, but so far, it meets all the needs that we have."
"The alerting system of the product is an area that I look at and sometimes get confused about. I feel the alerting feature needs improvement."
"I would like PingSafe to add real-time detection of vulnerabilities and cloud misconfigurations."
"The Kubernetes scanning on the Oracle Cloud needs to be improved. It's on the roadmap. AWS has this capability, but it's unavailable for Oracle Cloud."
"The Infrastructure as Code service available in PingSafe and the services available in AWS cloud security can be merged so that we can get the security data directly from AWS cloud in PingSafe. This way, all the data related to security will be in one single place. Currently, we have to check a couple of things on PingSafe, and we have to validate that same data on the AWS Cloud to be sure. If they can collaborate like that, it will be great."
"I would like to see a graphical user interface."
"There is room for improvement in automation processes, as well."
"It just loses out because you have less access to it programmatically, with less technical or customizable access."
"AKS could enhance its functionality by introducing a blueprint feature that streamlines and expedites the process. With a blueprint, users can leverage pre-defined configurations, including some common survey elements, reducing the need for extensive customization and allowing us to focus on our core business activities. Additionally, if the blueprint covers security aspects, it would be greatly beneficial, as it eliminates the need for us to build security expertise from scratch. Currently, we encounter challenges during cloud onboarding, security implementation, and adapting to Kubernetes. Although Microsoft may not consider these as their direct responsibility, providing a blueprint similar to what they offer to developers would be highly advantageous."
"It can be tough to access the servers when onboarding."
"The initial setup of AKS is complicated. The setup depends on the cluster, nodes, and lots of other things. There are also lots of extremely critical small devices. Moreover, you will have to pay them even while setting up the solution. It is not like you setup first and then pay for it."
"Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is not up to optimal standards when it comes to capturing logs and visualization."
"The technical support could be faster."
"There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift."
"OpenShift can improve monitoring. Sometimes there are issues. Additionally, the solution could benefit from protective tools if something was to happen in our network."
"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."
"The solution only offers support for one server."
"The area for improvement is mostly in support for legacy applications."
"There have been some issues with security, in particular, that we had to address. At times they make it “clunky." I am quite confident these parameters will appear in the next releases. They have been reported as bugs and are actually in process."
"It would be great if it supported Bitbucket repositories too."
"The interface could be simplified a bit more."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is ranked 13th in Container Security with 32 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 54 reviews. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is rated 8.2, while Red Hat 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 Red Hat 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 and Tenable.io Container Security, whereas Red Hat 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.
