We performed a comparison between Azure Red Hat OpenShift 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."In Kubernetes, when traffic goes out of a pod, it has to have its own IP address. Every service that's going out requires another IP. But with OpenShift, you don't have to deal with any of those IPs because they use NAT."
"It supports AKS and other projects like Kubernetes or EKS."
"The most valuable features of the solution are accessibility and scalability."
"I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten."
"It has a feature to automatically scale up or scale down. If my application is running in peak hours, it will automatically increase."
"The solution's support and its automation tool that ensures we are secure and appropriately configured are the most valuable features of Azure Red Hat OpenShift."
"OpenShift facilitates DevOps practices and improves CI/CD workflows in terms of stability compared to Jenkins."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"We want to build a solution that can be deployable to any cloud because of client requirements and OpenShift allows us to do this."
"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."
"OpenShift is based on Kubernetes and we try to use all the Kubernetes objects of OpenShift. We don't use features that are specific to OpenShift, except internal certificates for the services. The one feature that is missing from Kubernetes and that is really useful in OpenShift is the lifecycle of the cluster and the ease of installation. We use VMware and VMware integration internally with the OpenShift installer, which is very good. With OpenShift it's easy to spin up or scale out a cluster."
"What I like best about OpenShift is that it can reduce some of the costs of having multiple applications because you can just move them into small container applications. For example, applications don't need to run for twenty days, only to be used up by Monday. Through OpenShift, you can move some of the small applications into any cloud. I also find the design of OpenShift good."
"Provides support throughout the whole platform."
"I have seen a return on investment, and it depends upon the types and the nature of some of the most critical applications that have been hosted on the OpenShift infrastructure."
"The product is expensive."
"One of the things to notice is that this product can be expensive."
"They need to improve the core licensing model."
"Azure Red Hat OpenShift's support should be improved."
"There is room for improvement in terms of orchestration. While Azure orchestration offers valuable features, it's worth noting that it may not match the level of orchestration provided by Kubernetes itself."
"Automation could be improved."
"OpenShift's storage management could be better."
"Autoscaling is a very unique feature, but it could be useful to have more options based on traffic statistics, for example, via Prometheus. So, there should be more ready solutions to autoscale based on specific applications."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"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."
"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."
"I want easier node management and more user-friendly scripts for installing master and worker nodes."
"The product’s integration with Windows containers and other third-party products needs improvement."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
Azure Red Hat OpenShift is ranked 10th in PaaS Clouds with 7 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Azure Red Hat OpenShift is rated 8.4, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Azure Red Hat OpenShift writes "Runs on every platform; makes it easy to adapt to Kubernetes". 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". Azure Red Hat OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS and VMware Tanzu Application Service, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and IBM Cloud Private. See our Azure Red Hat OpenShift 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.