We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure and OpenShift based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: When choosing the best PaaS Cloud Solution, PeerSpot users rate Microsoft Azure as the best choice. Microsoft Azure provides robust PaaS options, such as robust platform and infrastructure services. The solution also functions extremely well as a SaaS and IaaS solution. Many users feel security and monitoring is lacking somewhat with OpenShift and that it should have better integrations with public clouds.
"The scalability is good."
"The most valuable feature is the instant availability of resources."
"Microsoft Azure has a lot of useful features. They have databases, application services, PaaS solutions, such as platform and infrastructure services. The virtual machines' functions and services are good."
"I come from the DBA side so for me it's the easy maintenance; backups are very easy as well."
"Being cloud-based saves the provisioning aspect of an on-premises solution."
"The most efficient feature of Microsoft Azure is that we can use it to update a website with a few clicks."
"Active Directory is a good feature. The infrastructure features that Azure provides are also good."
"The tool’s stability is good."
"Two stand-out features are the security model and value-add features that don't exist in Upstream Kubernetes."
"The most valuable feature is the auto scalers for all microservices. The feature allows us to place request limits and it is much cheaper than AWS."
"We want to build a solution that can be deployable to any cloud because of client requirements and OpenShift allows us to do this."
"Key features are WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure and the git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure."
"Overall, the solution's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is excellent."
"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."
"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 am impressed with the product's security features."
"Support could be improved. If you pay for a higher plan, it's okay, however, the lower plans don't offer as good of a service experience."
"The pricing in our region can be a bit high."
"The solution could be easier to use. However, when comparing it to AWS it is a bit easier."
"Its costing can be improved. There should be better cost management."
"Microsoft Azure could improve by having more virtual machine operating systems available."
"It can be cheaper, which might simplify things a bit."
"The tool needs to improve its navigation."
"Their backup strategy is a little complex which racks up the VM to other sole storage areas. This should be improved."
"I want easier node management and more user-friendly scripts for installing master and worker nodes."
"Latency and performance are two areas of concern in OpenShift where improvements are required."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"The interface could be simplified a bit more."
"One of the features that I've observed in Tanzu Mission Control is that I can manage multiple Kubernetes environments. For instance, one of my lines of business is using OpenShift OKD; another one wants to use Google Anthos, and somebody else wants to use VMware Tanzu. If I have to manage all these, Tanzu Mission Control is giving me the opportunity to completely manage all of my Kubernetes clusters, whereas, with OpenShift, I can only manage a particular area. I can't manage other Kubernetes clusters. I would like to have the option to manage all Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift."
"One glaring flaw is how OpenShift handles operators. Sometimes operators are forced to go into a particular namespace. When you do that, OpenShift creates an installation plan for everything in that namespace. These operators may be completely separate from each other and have nothing to do with each other, but now they are tied at the hip. You can't upgrade one without upgrading all of them. That's a huge mistake and highly problematic."
"Not a ten because it's not a standard solution and the endpoint protection user has to prepare with documentation or have training from other people. It's not easy to start because it's not like other solutions."
"The solution needs to support the new features in Kubernetes more quickly."
Microsoft Azure is ranked 1st in PaaS Clouds with 299 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Microsoft Azure is rated 8.4, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure writes "Promotes clear, logical structures preventing impractical configurations and offers seamless integration ". 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". Microsoft Azure is most compared with Google Firebase, Amazon AWS, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Pivotal Cloud Foundry and IBM Public Cloud, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI). See our Microsoft Azure 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.
