We performed a comparison between BMC Cloud Lifecycle Management and Red Hat CloudForms based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about VMware, Nutanix, IBM and others in Cloud Management."You can tie together your public and private cloud infrastructure into a "single pane of glass"."
"By allowing end users to request their own services, the request process for systems is much quicker and more accurate."
"Automates Java EE Application Deployment from an SCM system."
"CLM has a multi-cloud portal because they have the resources to implement in various environments in various ports."
"Integrates role-based access control with pre-configured policies for CIS, DISA, HIPAA, PCI, SOX, NIST, and SCAP documentation and remediation."
"Assesses change impact or completes an audit using multiple dashboard views."
"Supports unattended installs and image-based, script-based, or template-based provisioning."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to create dynamic catalogs."
"The solution is compatible and integrates with various infrastructures or providers."
"I am impressed with the product's reports."
"The multi-tenancy feature has been very helpful for our clients. It has been working fine and seamlessly for them. Its interface is also very simplified, and it is also an open and easy-to-scale solution."
"They are a very mature product."
"Red Hat CloudForms is a stable product. There is no issue with the stability."
"The optimization of the solution is quite interesting."
"The most valuable features of Red Hat CloudForms are the benefit of the collective functionality."
"Needs integrations with other providers to provide a custom public cloud environment."
"One of the major problems is that support is not so good."
"The installation and configuration can be tricky due to it being built on Remedy."
"Because the solution needs to integrate with other products that surround it, there is a lot of configuration required, and this can be quite complex. It's not as easy as it is with, for example, VMware."
"Red Hat CloudForms could improve by allowing more customization of reports. We have to do a lot of coding to accomplish what we want. Additionally, the compatibility with the multi-cloud could improve. The latter versions of the solution removed Google support and the cost comparison between other clouds was high."
"All of the areas of Red Hat CloudForms could improve. It doesn't do half of the things that it says it can do out of the box. It takes configuration to make any of it work, which is not uncommon for solutions similar to this. However, it is frustrating."
"The complexity of the solution is a bit high in comparison to VMware."
"I have issues with the solution's permissions. Unlike VMware, the product doesn't allow folder-type permissions."
"The problem is that the platform requires it to be maintained and updated. Also, a few cases are still pending with the Red Hat support team since they are not closed yet."
"The solution is still quite immature."
"The solution's provisioning engine needs to be improved."
Earn 20 points
BMC Cloud Lifecycle Management is ranked 43rd in Cloud Management while Red Hat CloudForms is ranked 7th in Cloud Management with 10 reviews. BMC Cloud Lifecycle Management is rated 7.8, while Red Hat CloudForms is rated 6.4. The top reviewer of BMC Cloud Lifecycle Management writes "Automates Java EE Application Deployment from an SCM system". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat CloudForms writes "Easily integrates with various out-of-the-box or third-party vendors". BMC Cloud Lifecycle Management is most compared with CloudBolt, whereas Red Hat CloudForms is most compared with Morpheus, VMware Aria Automation, vCloud Director, OpenNebula and IBM Cloud Automation Manager.
See our list of best Cloud Management vendors.
We monitor all Cloud 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.
