We performed a comparison between Amazon AWS and OpenShift based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Amazon AWS comes out on top in this comparison. Our reviewers agree that Amazon AWS is a high-performing and feature-rich solution with excellent customer support. OpenShift did come out on top in the Ease of Deployment category.
"Machine learning is a valuable feature."
"Amazon AWS is very stable."
"Amazon is a really good solution with high performance. They offer more connectors than some of their competitors, such as Microsoft Azure."
"Amazon AWS has a better portfolio. They have an impressive technology and service portfolio."
"Our primary use case is to use the solution for running many relatively small instances for back office applications and various other business important applications."
"The tool is a hosting platform that we can leverage to open servers. We can use it to build databases. We use cost management and high-performance capabilities of the tool."
"Their technical support is really good. I am very satisfied."
"The most valuable features of Amazon AWS are the high level of capabilities, cloud-native environment, developer-friendly, intuitive interface, and automation. The solution overall is easy to learn from the resources available."
"The security is good."
"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."
"The virtualization of my APIs means I no longer have to pay VMware large amounts of money to only run in-house solutions."
"The security features of OpenShift are strong when in use of role-based access."
"The stability has been good."
"I am impressed with the product's security features."
"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."
"I would recommend Red Hat OpenShift, especially for its automation capabilities."
"The overall convenience and the ease to use could be improved."
"The interface needs a bit of work. It's not intuitive."
"I generally don't like the user experience of Amazon. It's not the best."
"The solution could have better security and more integration with other platforms."
"The response time of technical support could be better."
"There are numerous use cases, and the setup varies from complicated to very simple in some cases."
"The AWS documentation is written in a way that is not very intuitive. That's an area they can improve."
"The price could be better. Support for data analytics could be better. I don't see much support for data analytics. They have a lot of support in Azure, but I don't see a lot of innovation on the data analytics side in AWS."
"The latest 4.0 version of OpenShift disabled a few of the features we previously made use of, although this wasn't a huge deal."
"There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift."
"An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift."
"OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets."
"Latency and performance are two areas of concern in OpenShift where improvements are required."
"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."
"OpenShift can improve monitoring. Sometimes there are issues. Additionally, the solution could benefit from protective tools if something was to happen in our network."
"The area for improvement is mostly in support for legacy applications."
Amazon AWS is ranked 2nd in PaaS Clouds with 250 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 54 reviews. Amazon AWS is rated 8.4, while Red Hat OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Amazon AWS writes "Reliable with good security but is difficult to set up". 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". Amazon AWS is most compared with Linode, Microsoft Azure, SAP Cloud Platform, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) and Pivotal Cloud Foundry, whereas Red Hat OpenShift is most compared with Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI). See our Amazon AWS 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.