We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud 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."The solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."
"When we started out, our secure score was pretty low. We adopted some of the recommendations that Security Center set out and we were able to make good progress on improving it. It had been in the low thirties and is now in the upper eighties."
"It's got a lot of great features."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the insights, meaning the remediation suggestions, as well as the incident alerts."
"The technical support is very good."
"Defender is a robust platform for dealing with many kinds of threats. We're protected from various threats, like viruses. Attacks can be easily minimized with this solution defending our infrastructure."
"Provides a very good view of the entire security setup of your organization."
"It isn't a highly complex solution. It's something that a lot of analysts can use. Defender gives you a broad overview of what's happening in your environment, and it's a great solution if you're a Microsoft shop."
"The most valuable are security features, particularly when operating in the cloud."
"I find the security features and use of operators in OpenShift Container Platform highly valuable."
"Some of the primary features we leverage in the platform have to do with how we manage the cluster configurations, the properties, and the auto-scalability. These are the features that definitely provide value in terms of reducing overhead for the developers."
"On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."
"The usability and the developer experience. The platform has a centralized consultant that is easy to use for our development, operations and security teams."
"The auto scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, determined from pre-prepared rules is the most valuable feature. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier, such as an ARB deployment. This really helped in rolling out releases without disrupting services for the end-users."
"The most valuable features are the monitoring and logging functionalities."
"The most valuable feature is that the solution can be deployed in the cloud which removes the expense of a server."
"The remediation process could be improved."
"I would suggest building a single product that addresses endpoint server protection, attack surface, and everything else in one solution. That is the main disadvantage with the product. If we are incorporating some features, we end up in a situation where this solution is for the server, and that one is for the client, or this is for identity, and that is for our application. They're not bundling it. Commercially, we can charge for different licenses, but on the implementation side, it's tough to help our end-customer understand which product they're getting."
"Azure is a complex solution. You have so many moving parts."
"The documentation could be much clearer."
"No possibility to write or edit any capability."
"Another thing that could be improved was that they could recommend processes on how to react to alerts, or recommend best practices based on how other organizations do things if they receive an alert about XYZ."
"The overview provides you with good information, but if you want more details, there is a lot more customization to do, which requires knowledge of the other supporting solutions."
"Customizing some of the compliance requirements based on individual needs seems like the biggest area of improvement. There should be an option to turn specific controls on and off based on how your solution is configured."
"The product's interface is a bit buggy."
"Getting the solution quickly and troubleshooting quickly are both areas where I think it needs some work."
"OpenShift has certain restrictions in terms of managing the cluster when it's running on a public cloud. For example, identity and access management integration with the IM of AWS is quite difficult. It requires some open-source tools to integrate. This is one area where I always see room for improvement."
"OpenShift Container Platform is an expensive solution, and its pricing could be improved."
"The product monitoring tool does not work for us."
"OpenShift needs to improve their container storage."
"One area for improvement is that we can't currently run Docker inside a container, as it clashes with security consents. It would be good if we could change that."
"The complexity of the installation could be reduced. While we got the necessary support, the instructions could be clearer."
More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 10th in Container Management with 46 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 39 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". 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". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, 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 HashiCorp Nomad. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud 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.