We performed a comparison between OpenShift Container Platform and Portainer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Amazon Web Services (AWS), VMware and others in Container Management."The auto scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, determined from pre-prepared rules is the most valuable feature. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier, such as an ARB deployment. This really helped in rolling out releases without disrupting services for the end-users."
"OpenShift is a user-friendly container platform with a solid GUI that helps you follow what is going on and gives you an overview of all your clusters. It's more user-friendly than the Kubernetes itself. The interface helps you learn the platform and provides access to some features or specific comments."
"Autoscaling is an excellent feature that makes it very simple to scale our applications as required."
"Centralized control of container resources is most valuable."
"On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."
"Dashboards... give us all the details we need to see about the microservices."
"The initial setup process is easy."
"OpenShift provides tools that tell me everything I have on a container, and I can make it on-premise or on a cloud infrastructure."
"Portainer comes with the ability to take the information of docker definition. Using it, I can visually observe how the container has been created. It allows me to create networks. I can also visually generate volumes and working stacks."
"The setup process is not great."
"Another thing that bugs me is that they removed the software in NFS storage. I don't understand why because this is a common type of storage. I am having problems with that, so I wish they would put it back."
"My impression is that this solution is pretty expensive so I think the pricing plan could improve."
"We've encountered challenges when transitioning applications between these environments."
"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."
"Getting the solution quickly and troubleshooting quickly are both areas where I think it needs some work."
"We encounter difficulties while accessing the environment and managing the cluster. This particular area needs improvement."
"Setting up OpenShift isn't easy. I rate it three out of ten for ease of setup. We're deploying it in three phases. They're in the second phase now. The total deployment time will be five months. We expect to complete the deployment this March. There are 13 people on three teams working on this deployment."
"Portainer needs to be more intuitive."
OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 36 reviews while Portainer is ranked 13th in Container Management with 1 review. OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2, while Portainer is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenShift Container Platform writes "Provides automation that speeds up our process by 30% and helps us achieve zero downtime". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Portainer writes "A GUI solution that helps to administer a docker using a browser". OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon Elastic Container Service and Cisco Container Platform, whereas Portainer is most compared with Rancher Labs, Kubernetes, VMware Tanzu Build Service, HashiCorp Nomad and VMware Tanzu Mission Control.
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.