We performed a comparison between Cloud Foundry and Red Hat OpenShift based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two PaaS Clouds solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Cloud Foundry builds the runtime environment directly without requiring dependency management from the user."
"My favorite component of IBM's solution is Node-RED, which greatly shortens the amount of time required to develop, test, and deploy new applications."
"IBM is the only vendor to offer integration with blockchain for smart contract development."
"The virtualization of my APIs means I no longer have to pay VMware large amounts of money to only run in-house solutions."
"This solution helps us to account for peak seasons involving higher demand than usual. It also gives us confidence in the security of our overall systems."
"The most valuable feature is the auto scalers for all microservices. The feature allows us to place request limits and it is much cheaper than AWS."
"Security is also an important part of this solution. By default, things are running with limited privileges and securely confined to their own resources. This way, different users and projects can all use the same infrastructure."
"The security is good."
"The product's initial setup is very easy, especially compared to AWS."
"The solution is easy to scale."
"The solution offers ease with which we can define how to run applications and configure them. It's much more convenient than creating a virtual machine and configuring application servers, making the process faster and simpler."
"In IBM Cloud, the product has been deprecated in favor of Kubernetes, which is a more complicated infrastructure to manage."
"After the initial excitement period with Node-RED is over, you crave the need of additional integrations to third-party services."
"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."
"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."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"It would be great if it supported Bitbucket repositories too."
"Documentation and technical support could be improved. The product is good, but when we raise a case with support—say we are having an image issue—the support is not really up to the mark. It is difficult to get support... When we raise a case, their support people will hesitate to get on a call or a screen-sharing session. That is a major drawback when it comes to OpenShift."
"The interface could be simplified a bit more."
"OpenShift can improve monitoring. Sometimes there are issues. Additionally, the solution could benefit from protective tools if something was to happen in our network."
"Not a ten because it's not a standard solution and the endpoint protection user has to prepare with documentation or have training from other people. It's not easy to start because it's not like other solutions."
Cloud Foundry is ranked 21st in PaaS Clouds with 2 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 55 reviews. Cloud Foundry is rated 5.0, while Red Hat OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cloud Foundry writes "Quick to deploy but being deprecated by IBM and should be merged with Kubernetes ". 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". Cloud Foundry is most compared with Pivotal Cloud Foundry, VMware Tanzu Application Service, Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure, whereas Red Hat OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Google Cloud. See our Cloud Foundry vs. Red Hat OpenShift report.
See our list of best PaaS Clouds vendors.
We monitor all PaaS Clouds 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.
