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.
"A scalable and secure product"
"Amazon AWS is good in terms of deployment and user experience. Their certificate management and load balancer are also good features."
"Macie is great. It is a service that makes recommendations on a data layer for cybersecurity. It is a great service."
"Amazon is a really good solution with high performance. They offer more connectors than some of their competitors, such as Microsoft Azure."
"The pricing model is good. It's pay-as-you-go."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that they offer everything around in just one platform."
"User friendly solution."
"This solution is a good option if you are looking for cloud-based storage. Using a cloud-based solution, it is not required to accommodate a full workload. You can start with a basic version and scale up as needed."
"We are able to operate client’s platform without downtime during security patch management each month and provide a good SLA (as scalability for applications is processed during heavy client website load, automatically)."
"Great integration with Jenkins for constant integration and development. Supports all the major languages and environments - PHP, Java, Node.js, Ruby, etc."
"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 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."
"The security is good."
"I love to automate everything and OpenShift was been born for that. It takes care of the network layer itself and I don't need to dive into it; I can work on a top level. Our project has numerous services designed to run in Docker containers, and we have run almost all pieces in OpenShift."
"It is a stable platform."
"Key features are WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure and the git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure."
"It would be ideal if they could provide automatic health reports. That way, I would be able to understand at a glance the state of my services at any given time."
"At times we find ourselves a little trapped, with the lack of customization, for what we need."
"The customization could be improved."
"Some of the storage services could be cheaper."
"The price needs improvement."
"The features that should be improved are that there should be better clarity on their invoicing. There are so many things they charge for - high line items in the invoice. I think there should be more clarity and more ease of use with their billing. I'd like to see better ease of use of with the billing console and a clear dashboard to understand the usage."
"It works very well with open-source solutions like Java, but not with .NET technologies."
"They should really consolidate and make things simpler rather than offer you hundreds of random options. The way everything is arranged really forces users to figure out everything on their own and then, on top of that, to calculate the total costs. There's an infinite number of combinations even just with cost calculations. It's just too much."
"The metrics in OpenShift can use improvement."
"It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory."
"Autoscaling is a very unique feature, but it could be useful to have more options based on traffic statistics, for example, via Prometheus. So, there should be more ready solutions to autoscale based on specific applications."
"If we can have a GUI-based configuration with better flexibility then it will be great."
"An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications... They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore."
"We need some kind of a multi-cluster management solution from the Red Hat site."
Amazon AWS is ranked 2nd in PaaS Clouds with 250 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Amazon AWS is rated 8.4, while 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 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 OpenShift is most compared with Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI). See our Amazon AWS vs. 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.