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.
"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."
"AWS has many integrations and plenty of tools available for anyone to take advantage of. There are new features being added all the time."
"The product is nice and stable. Its performance is great."
"The AWS feature that I most enjoy is Lambda functions. I primarily use serverless components because they allow you to process things without having to compromise on resources like when running EC2 instances or virtual machines. With minimal effort, you can scale up an unlimited number of processes, even concurrently, to process things. I frequently work with web APIs, so I use Lambda a lot in this area."
"I like the auto-scaling functionality and compliance requirements, whichever they are requesting."
"The solution can scale well."
"I like the storage, all the codes like Lambda and Amazon EMR."
"Very good automation and very stable."
"I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones."
"Scaling and uptime of the applications are positives."
"Self-provisioning support saves a lot of time and unnecessary work from the system administrator who can use this time to run and monitor the infrastructure. For the developer, this means less time waiting for the provisioning and excellent flexibility for development, testing, and production. Also, in such systems it is easy for developers to monitor applications even after deployment."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"In terms of implementation, OpenShift is very user-friendly, which is an advantage. We are using it along with GitLab for implementing CI/CD pipelines. That's a feature that other products also have, but in OpenShift, we find it good."
"We want to build a solution that can be deployable to any cloud because of client requirements and OpenShift allows us to do this."
"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 security is good."
"Amazon AWS could be improved with cheaper licensing costs."
"The customization could be improved."
"It should be more secure and have more integrations."
"Identity and access management on AWS could be straightforward."
"The initial setup is not easy at all."
"There should be improvement in terms of creating databases of varying sizes which would provide flexibility."
"The pricing is reasonable but there is always room to be better."
"One of the problems that I have seen is that some of the products are not as mature as others."
"There have been some issues with security, in particular, that we had to address. At times they make it “clunky." I am quite confident these parameters will appear in the next releases. They have been reported as bugs and are actually in process."
"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."
"The product’s integration with Windows containers and other third-party products needs improvement."
"One of the features that I've observed in Tanzu Mission Control is that I can manage multiple Kubernetes environments. For instance, one of my lines of business is using OpenShift OKD; another one wants to use Google Anthos, and somebody else wants to use VMware Tanzu. If I have to manage all these, Tanzu Mission Control is giving me the opportunity to completely manage all of my Kubernetes clusters, whereas, with OpenShift, I can only manage a particular area. I can't manage other Kubernetes clusters. I would like to have the option to manage all Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift."
"We want to see better alerting, especially in critical situations requiring immediate intervention. Until we go to the dashboard, it can be challenging to quickly recognize that there's an issue for us to deal with. Therefore, a popup of the event or a tweaked GUI to catch our attention when it's alerting would be a welcome change. Everything else is good. We don't need any additional features. From the operations perspective, as an administrator, there is nothing concerning."
"This solution could be improved by offering best practices on standardization and additional guidance on how to use this solution."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"The solution only offers support for one server."
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.