We performed a comparison between IBM Public Cloud and OpenShift based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two PaaS Clouds solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The price of IBM Cloud is most valuable for us. The service is personable and gives us a good rapport. I can't say it's the best, but it was enough for our needs."
"The beauty of cloud service providers, especially public cloud service providers, is that they are scalable every time when you need them because their payment model is pay-as-you-go."
"There is no installation for this product because it is a cloud product."
"It is easy to deploy what you need for the initial setup"
"The most valuable feature of IBM Public Cloud is the AI integrations."
"This is a predictable and dependable service."
"It is a scalable product. You can scale it up and down."
"It's straightforward, has a good environment and is cost-effective."
"Provides support throughout the whole platform."
"Excellent GUI support, so one does not need to use the command line client for almost any tasks. Great support for building images directly from Git repositories with hooks."
"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."
"Valuable features include auto-recreate of pod if pod fails; fast rollback, with one click, to previous version."
"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."
"Its security is most valuable. It's by default secure, which is very important."
"This solution helps us to account for peak seasons involving higher demand than usual. It also gives us confidence in the security of our overall systems."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is the great customer service and the ability for our team to get assistance when we need it."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"There is not a lot of support for this solution, which is something that needs to be improved."
"Maybe performance enhancers and reports could be better improved. If they do so, it would be better. Of all the drawbacks I saw, this would be the biggest enhancement."
"The initial setup and the pricing are areas that need improvement."
"The deployment can be a bit of a pain. There are a lot of packages and a lot of options and it can require complex configuration to get it right."
"An area for improvement in IBM Public Cloud is getting up-to-date information on how to set up everything. It's hard to find new documentation."
"They could improve on customizing reporting capabilities."
"The solution needs to be more autonomous. It should let the DL go to allow for more jobs on the cloud. It could have a better interface as well."
"The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations."
"The tool lacks some features to make it compliant with Kubernetes"
"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."
"This is a fairly expensive solution."
"Latency and performance are two areas of concern in OpenShift where improvements are required."
"The interface could be simplified a bit more."
"One area for improvement is the documentation. They need to make it a little bit more user-friendly. Also, if you compare certain features and the installation process with Rancher, Rancher is simpler."
"There are challenges related to additional security layers, connectivity compliance for endpoints, and integration."
IBM Public Cloud is ranked 9th in PaaS Clouds with 16 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. IBM Public Cloud is rated 8.0, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Public Cloud writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and has helpful support". 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". IBM Public Cloud is most compared with Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Google Cloud and Dell ECS, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Google Cloud. See our IBM Public Cloud 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.