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.
"This solution is stable and reliable."
"It has helped reduce the cost by rationing the computing power and paying only on a per usage basis, instead of provisioning unneeded, idle, or unutilized computing power that is used only at 20% of its capacity or time."
"The compute and the elasticness of the compute is really great. Whenever there's a load, it automatically adds the servers and then reduces the servers based on the configuration. This is really wonderful, more cost-effective, and it's been really good for us."
"The interface of the solution is good."
"It is easy to spin up resources."
"Easy to deploy through the channel model for serverless architecture and easy to integrate through the organization model."
"I like that the products are specific and objective. We can resolve a problem using a simple configuration. It's so easy to implement a solution and solve a problem using AWS solutions. AWS has a lot of specific solutions for different use cases. I think that this is the most important thing that made us consider using AWS."
"The performance of AWS is excellent."
"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 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."
"Overall, the solution's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is excellent."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"There is a quick deployment of the application, and we can scale out efficiently."
"The solution could improve by being more secure."
"An easier way to determine estimated costs quickly would be helpful."
"They are mainly generalists without access to the operating system. As such, they can provide container level insights,not necessarily at the application level."
"There should be seminars and online training sessions available from AWS because a lot of people who are not using it would benefit from having the basic knowledge or basic hands-on experience."
"The interface is relatively complex."
"Amazon still has room for improvement in terms of being more mature on the monitoring side and in terms of the native capabilities. Amazon should get their services portfolio stronger on OEM-based workloads such as Microsoft and Oracle. There are a lot of areas that still do not have offerings, so there is room to grow. I would be happy if they bring more maturity to the monitoring capabilities and SaaS offerings. They are strong on Infrastructure as a Service, but they are not mature on SaaS."
"In terms of additional features we'd like to see, the one thing that comes to mind is better integration with Oracle. We have a lot of Oracle databases, and there is no other option to either migrate to PaaS, stay on-prem, or use Oracle Private Cloud."
"The technical support can take longer than expected sometimes. They could improve on this."
"The product’s integration with Windows containers and other third-party products needs improvement."
"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 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."
"The tool lacks some features to make it compliant with Kubernetes"
"Credential not hidden, so people on the same group can view it."
"Room for improvement is around the offerings that come as a bundle with the container platform. The packaging of the platform should be done such that customers do not have to purchase additional licenses."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"The metrics in OpenShift can use improvement."
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.