We performed a comparison between Cisco Container Platform and Kubernetes based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Amazon Web Services (AWS), VMware and others in Container Management."The most valuable feature is definitely the fact that you can use a single platform to deploy to different resource providers. Right now, the version I'm using has vSphere and AWS, but I know in the future they're planning on adding more. The ability to deploy clusters on-prem or to any number of public cloud providers is really valuable because you don't need to relearn or switch platforms to switch resource providers."
"The best feature is autoscaling. It's effortless to use for scaling deployment parts, CI/CD, etc."
"The most valuable feature of the platform is the ability to load some of the containers that were previously managed by humans."
"Once you get it configured properly, it's a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Kubernetes is automation. It is the best tool for automation."
"If you're switching from VMs to Kubernetes, you will see a return because you can pack more into the Kubernetes architecture using containers rather than VMs. You'll see some more savings on your infrastructure, as well."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Docker containers."
"The auto-repair function in Kubernetes is perfect. When something breaks, the auto-repair function automatically repairs it. If you are running the content in Kubernetes, you have a good set up. You do not need to do anything for the management of this. So, the automation of Kubernetes is number one."
"Offers a crucial feedback process"
"One thing that is a little bit annoying about Cisco Container Platform is that for each cluster you create you have to go through the same web form each time. If you're creating two identical clusters, you still have to go through that web form twice."
"The security of the solution is in its infancy and needs a lot of work."
"Kubernetes is incredibly complicated, so one area of improvement is the ease of administration. I would like a user interface that you can run to help you debug and diagnose problems and suggest how to configure things."
"The support could be faster at resolving issues."
"The network policies and RBAC management across multi-clusters could be improved. This is an issue we're trying to solve in the market."
"We would to have additional features related to security within the API, instead of needing to install add-ons."
"The platform could be more convenient to use."
"Lacks some scalability and more user-friendly operability."
"The solution does not work with third-party tools, or alternative cloud providers, which limits the extent that we can utilize it to."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Container Platform is ranked 21st in Container Management while Kubernetes is ranked 4th in Container Management with 73 reviews. Cisco Container Platform is rated 8.0, while Kubernetes is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco Container Platform writes "Enables the deployment/management of Kubernetes clusters from multiple resource providers at one location". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kubernetes writes "Container orchestrator that deploys our machine learning solutions". Cisco Container Platform is most compared with Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform and VMware Tanzu Mission Control, whereas Kubernetes is most compared with VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon EKS, Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform and NGINX Ingress Controller.
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.