We performed a comparison between Kubernetes and OpenShift Container Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The Desired State Configuration is a handy feature; we can deploy a certain number of pods, and the tool will ensure that the state is maintained in our desired configuration."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The autoscaling feature is the most valuable. Kubernetes itself is an orchestration tool. It automatically detects the load, and it automatically spins up the new Pod in the form of a new microservice deployment."
"Kubernetes' most valuable features include scalability and deployment."
"Provides auto rollback and scale-up and scale-down functionalities."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Docker containers."
"The performance is good."
"This solution is cost effective and fast. We are able to use Kubernetes to orchestrate hundreds of container images which has been a major benefit."
"The platform is easy to scale as it supports Windows worker node."
"The most valuable feature for me in the OpenShift Container Platform is the option to manage different containers and environments and also being able to switch among them."
"It’s user-friendly."
"It is very lightweight and can be deployed very fast, especially when it comes to containers."
"Red Hat's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is good. It is a lightweight operating system. You don't have to worry about the security patches on the system. You can update the entire environment with security patches, which is a nice feature."
"I think it's a pretty scalable tool...The solution's technical support has been pretty good."
"I have found the ability to scale up is most valuable."
"The banking transactions, inquiries, and account opening have been the most valuable."
"The solution could be more stable."
"The setup and operation of the product should be simplified."
"Kubernetes' VM functionality and security could be improved."
"The configuration is a bit complicated."
"The setup process could be improved as it's quite complex, especially for newbies."
"It would be great if Kubernetes could handle a level of data backup."
"The solution does not work with third-party tools, or alternative cloud providers, which limits the extent that we can utilize it to."
"The management needs to be improved."
"Container Platform could be improved if we could aggregate logs out of the box instead of having to do it through integrations with other products."
"It is difficult to deploy the OpenShift cluster in a bare-metal environment."
"I want to see more incorporation of native automation features; then, we could write a code, deploy it directly to OpenShift, and allow it to take care of the automated process. Using this method, we could write one application and have elements copy/pasted to other applications in the development process."
"Things are there and the documentation is there, however, there still needs to be quick guides available."
"The complexity of the installation could be reduced. While we got the necessary support, the instructions could be clearer."
"Getting the solution quickly and troubleshooting quickly are both areas where I think it needs some work."
"In my experience, the issues are not always simply technical. They do stem from technical challenges, but they struggle with the topic of adoption. When you encounter all of the customer pull, there are normally several tiers of your client pop that can adopt either the fundamental features or a little more advanced ones. The majority of the time, the challenge is determining how to drive adoption, how to sell the product to the customer, and how much time they can spend to really utilize those advanced features. If we get into much more detail, but this is from my perspective as the platform engineer and not the end customer, the ability of the end user to be able to debug potential issues with their application That is arguably the most important, let's say, work throughput in my area."
"There should be a simplification of the overall cluster environment. It should require fewer resources. Just to run a simple Hello World app, it requires about seven servers, and that's just crazy. I understand that it is fully redundant, but it's prohibitively expensive to get something simple going."
Kubernetes is ranked 4th in Container Management with 67 reviews while OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 36 reviews. Kubernetes is rated 8.6, while OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kubernetes writes "Container orchestrator that deploys our machine learning solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenShift Container Platform writes "Provides automation that speeds up our process by 30% and helps us achieve zero downtime". Kubernetes is most compared with VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Amazon EKS, Google Kubernetes Engine, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE and HPE Ezmeral Container Platform, whereas OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon Elastic Container Service and HPE Ezmeral Container Platform. See our Kubernetes vs. OpenShift Container Platform report.
See our list of best Container Management vendors.
We monitor all Container 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.
