We performed a comparison between Kubernetes 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."We use it for various large microservice-based architectures and web services. That's the ideal use case, but it's suitable for any kind of service that can be decomposed and needs to be scaled. Of course, it's much easier to deploy services that are stateless. It"
"The most valuable feature of the platform is the ability to load some of the containers that were previously managed by humans."
"Kubernetes offers a lot of great features such as scalability and great portability of applications."
"There's a lot of community support if you need to get help."
"It has a complete loading feature set for replica site deployment."
"Provision of a managed platform as a service."
"The cloud-managed Kubernetes allow us to take care of a big system and deployment and container management without having a big operational team."
"I like the replication center and the configuration."
"The platform is easy to scale as it supports Windows worker node."
"Openshift is a very developer-friendly product."
"OpenShift provides tools that tell me everything I have on a container, and I can make it on-premise or on a cloud infrastructure."
"OpenShift is a user-friendly container platform with a solid GUI that helps you follow what is going on and gives you an overview of all your clusters. It's more user-friendly than the Kubernetes itself. The interface helps you learn the platform and provides access to some features or specific comments."
"The most valuable feature for me in the OpenShift Container Platform is the option to manage different containers and environments and also being able to switch among them."
"Dashboards... give us all the details we need to see about the microservices."
"The most valuable feature is that the solution can be deployed in the cloud which removes the expense of a server."
"It is very lightweight and can be deployed very fast, especially when it comes to containers."
"Lacks some scalability and more user-friendly operability."
"The initial setup of Kubernetes is difficult. However, if you are used to the flow then it is easier. The length of time it takes for the implementation depends on the project."
"Security could be improved. It would be helpful if there were other security modules built into Kubernetes."
"In the financial service sector, I'd rate scalability an eight out of ten. But do it in a controlled manner, not auto-scaling. If your application has a bug and you enable the autoscaler, it will spike your costs. If someone deploys an application with a bug, that's automatically a problem."
"The solution has some issues regarding availability during high loads. Worker nodes are sometimes unavailable, affecting the overall availability of the applications. This is a bug or underlying problem with the tool, and Azure and other providers are looking into improving this by releasing new versions of Kubernetes that fix some of the platform's issues."
"The user-interface in regards to the other solution can be improved."
"They need to focus on more security internally."
"I think that the GUI dashboard in Kubernetes is very simple and that there are no great options."
"OpenShift Container Platform could improve by having better integration."
"It can take 10 to 15 minutes to deploy a microservice. The CI/CD process takes a long time, and if it's because of OCP, that is something that can be changed."
"Things are there and the documentation is there, however, there still needs to be quick guides available."
"We've encountered challenges when transitioning applications between these environments."
"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."
"There is room for improvement with integration."
"Getting the solution quickly and troubleshooting quickly are both areas where I think it needs some work."
"The initial setup can be hard."
More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kubernetes is ranked 4th in Container Management with 73 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 37 reviews. Kubernetes is rated 8.6, while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kubernetes writes "Container orchestrator that deploys our machine learning solutions". 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". Kubernetes is most compared with VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon EKS, Google Kubernetes Engine and HPE Ezmeral Container Platform, whereas Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon Elastic Container Service and HPE Ezmeral Container Platform. See our Kubernetes 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.
