We performed a comparison between IBM Cloud Private 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."We have control of the ESXi."
"Our core banking process was monolithic. To address this, we transitioned to a microservices-based architecture. Leveraging Microsoft technologies, including Terminals version 23, we’ve revamped our banking operations. Not all services are microservices; some remain monolithic for simplicity. Containerization is pivotal, with OpenShift (based on Kubernetes and Docker) managing our microservices."
"The most valuable attribute is the platform's ability to consistently deliver high reliability."
"The product's framework is good, it integrates well with API Connect, and the private cloud allows for use in any location."
"Excellent technical support."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"OpenShift offers robust tools for monitoring application traffic, allowing us to analyze client requests and other business-related metrics."
"Great integration with Jenkins for constant integration and development. Supports all the major languages and environments - PHP, Java, Node.js, Ruby, etc."
"Two stand-out features are the security model and value-add features that don't exist in Upstream Kubernetes."
"Scaling and uptime of the applications are positives."
"Key features are WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure and the git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure."
"The developers seem to like the source-to-image feature. That makes it easy for them to deploy an application from code into containers, so they don't have to think about things. They take it straight from their code into a containerized application. If you don't have OpenShift, you have to build the container and then deploy the container to, say, EKS or something like that."
"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."
"I've noticed that the satellite services layer requires some improvement compared to platforms like Azure or Microsoft. While it's in development, I believe the satellite layer has room for enhancement. Additionally, the DevOps layer could benefit from closer integrations, especially for using external applications like Jenkins."
"lacking in multi-cloud management."
"One issue with the solution is latency because there is lag time when we connect."
"Auto-scaling and managing pod scaling in the microservices architecture, a core feature of IBM Cloud Private, can pose challenges, especially when dealing with larger volumes of traffic."
"The support and pricing need to improve."
"The latest 4.0 version of OpenShift disabled a few of the features we previously made use of, although this wasn't a huge deal."
"OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets."
"The solution only offers support for one server."
"Its virtual upgrades are time-consuming."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations."
"The area for improvement is mostly in support for legacy applications."
"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."
IBM Cloud Private is ranked 18th in PaaS Clouds with 5 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. IBM Cloud Private is rated 6.8, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Cloud Private writes "Reliable platform with significant challenges related to performance capabilities when subjected to high traffic loads". 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 Cloud Private is most compared with Amazon AWS, Google App Engine and Pivotal Cloud Foundry, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and VMware Aria Automation. See our IBM Cloud Private 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.