Google Kubernetes Engine vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform comparison

"The product has no downtime."

"I am impressed with the product's output scaling."

"Stability is perfect for me."

"Stability-wise, this solution is really good."

"It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best."

"The product has valuable security features. It can connect with multiple DevOps tools."

"We appreciate that it is quite easy to set up a Kubernetes cluster in Google Cloud, using the managed services within this solution."

"It is easy to use and deploy."

"The software is user-friendly and straightforward to use, which is favorable to a developer."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is its scalability on demand, which allows for potentially lower costs, and Built-in resiliency."

"The product is stable, reliable, and easy to use, from a well-known company, has a large volume handling capacity, and more and more organizations are moving to OpenShift."

"Openshift is a very developer-friendly product."

"The most valuable feature is that the solution can be deployed in the cloud which removes the expense of a server."

"The operating system has a live update and is more secure than any other. It's made for Atomic OS, a lightweight OS new to the market. I also like the source-to-image capabilities. The customer can directly deploy their applications from the repository. It's a highly flexible and easy way to deploy into production."

"The initial setup process is easy."

"The usability and the developer experience. The platform has a centralized consultant that is easy to use for our development, operations and security teams."

"We would like to see some improvement in the ease of integration with this solution."

"The monitoring part requires some serious improvements in Google Kubernetes Engine, as it does not have very good monitoring consoles."

"I think that security is an important point, and there should be additional features for the evaluation of data in containers that will create a more secure environment for usage in multi-parent models."

"Google Kubernetes Engine is less stable in some highly complex deployments with many nodes."

"The user interface is a bit confusing sometimes. You need to navigate between the various consoles we have. It's hard to figure out where things are. It's frustrating. The documentation could be a bit better."

"An area in which Google Kubernetes Engine could improve is configuration."

"The console for this solution could be improved because it is very limited."

"The product could be cheaper."

"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."

"OpenShift has a pretty steep learning curve. It's not an easy tool to use. It's not only OpenShift but Kubernetes itself. The good thing is that Red Hat provides specific targeted training. There are five or six pieces of training where you can get certifications. The licenses for OpenShift are pretty expensive, so they could be cheaper because the competition isn't sleeping, and Red Hat must take that into account."

"The support costs are too high."

"There is room for improvement with integration."

"I believe that the documentation part is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."

"I believe OpenShift Container Platform can improve in networking, architecture, and cloud areas by reducing deployment time, lowering costs, and streamlining engineer resources"

"Container Platform could be improved if we could aggregate logs out of the box instead of having to do it through integrations with other products."

"My impression is that this solution is pretty expensive so I think the pricing plan could improve."

"Currently, it costs around $1000 per month which sorted our deployment. So once we get more clients, having a huge suffix, costs can go up."

"Initially, Google Kubernetes Engine was a little bit cheaper, but now its prices have been increased compared to the pricing model and the features that are made available by its competitors."

"The product is a little bit expensive."

"We are planning to use external support, and hire a commercial partner for it."

"I would rate Kubernetes' pricing four out of five."

"This is an open source solution, so there is no pricing or licensing."

"It is competitive, and it is not expensive. It is almost competitive with AWS and the rest of the cloud solutions. We are spending around 3K USD per month. There are four projects that are currently running, and each one is incurring a cost of around 3K USD."

"The tool's licensing costs are yearly."

"The solution is expensive, and I rate it an eight out of ten. There is a subscription called OpenShift Plus, which offers additional features and products the vendor provides to complement the OpenShift Container Platform. These include ACM, Red Hat Quay, and Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation."

"It depends on who you're talking to. For a large corporation, it is acceptable, other than the significant infrastructure requirements. For a small organization, it is in no way suitable, and we'd go for Amazon's container solution."

"OpenShift Container Platform is highly-priced."

"The pricing is a bit more expensive than expected."

"Its price is a bit high because it's a premium product, but as long as the business is ready to pay for that, it's okay."

"We paid for Cloud Pak for integration. It all depends on how many VMs or how many CPUs you are using. They do the licensing based on that."

"I'm not familiar with pricing or financial aspects. In terms of effort versus benefit, it's worth it."

"OpenShift with Red Hat support is pretty costly. We have done a comparison between AWS EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Services) which provides fully managed services from AWS. It's built on open-source-based Kubernetes clusters and it is much cheaper compared to Red Hat, but it is a little expensive compared to ECS provided by AWS."