We performed a comparison between OpenShift Container Platform and Rancher Labs 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 banking transactions, inquiries, and account opening have been the most valuable."
"It is very lightweight and can be deployed very fast, especially when it comes to containers."
"Some of the primary features we leverage in the platform have to do with how we manage the cluster configurations, the properties, and the auto-scalability. These are the features that definitely provide value in terms of reducing overhead for the developers."
"The best feature is the management for the port life cycle, which automatically recycles, pulls, and scales up and down based on needs and requests."
"The most valuable features are the monitoring and logging functionalities."
"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."
"The solution is stable. However, it depends on the integrations of the solution on how stable it will be, such as what tools you integrate with."
"On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."
"The scalability potential is very good."
"This solution is not vendor-locked, which means that we we are able to use it across all of our resources; this feature is of great value to us."
"The most valuable feature of Rancher Labs is its user interface, which makes it easier to work with containers and deployment."
"A great UI with very good integrations."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is an open-source solution that is easy to deploy."
"Rancher Labs is a very user-friendly tool."
"The tool's UI is very convenient enough to help you manage multiple clusters in the cloud or the company, making it a product with which you can manage different clusters and locations."
"The product monitoring tool does not work for us."
"From a networking perspective, the routing capability can be matured further. OpenShift doesn't handle restrictions on what kind of IPs are allowed, who can access them, and who cannot access them. So it is a simple matter of just using it with adequate network access, at the network level."
"We encounter difficulties while accessing the environment and managing the cluster. This particular area needs improvement."
"The solution needs to introduce open ID connect integration for role-based access control."
"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."
"The UI could be more user-friendly to drive tasks more effectively through the interface."
"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."
"There is room for improvement with integration."
"We have found that the auto-secure feature of this solution doesn't always work, and could be improved to be more reliable, particularly when working with business critical applications."
"We're looking for something that is even easier to use. It's a bit complicated."
"The solution could improve by adding more features in the dashboard, such as monitoring, scanning, and security. This would be a great benefit."
"The biggest room for improvement in Rancher Labs would be to have a proper upgrading plan."
"They should improve application visibility along with code visibility."
"One area for improvement in Rancher Labs is the development aspect."
"We'd like their monitoring tool to be integrated by default."
"Could be more intuitive."
OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 36 reviews while Rancher Labs is ranked 5th in Container Management with 13 reviews. OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2, while Rancher Labs is rated 8.4. 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 Rancher Labs writes "An easy-to-use user interface, which makes it easy to work with Kubernetes and containers". OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon Elastic Container Service and Kubernetes, whereas Rancher Labs is most compared with VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Amazon EKS, Docker, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE and Google Kubernetes Engine. See our OpenShift Container Platform vs. Rancher Labs 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.
