We performed a comparison between Red Hat OpenShift and Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud 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."OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"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."
"OpenShift offers robust tools for monitoring application traffic, allowing us to analyze client requests and other business-related metrics."
"This solution is providing a platform with OOTB features that are difficult to build from scratch."
"It is a stable platform."
"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."
"It's cloud agnostic and the containerization and security features are outstanding."
"OpenShift facilitates DevOps practices and improves CI/CD workflows in terms of stability compared to Jenkins."
"The solution offers the most robust Kubernetes orchestration available."
"In general, customers appreciate its ability to run different workloads, manage applications through CI/CD pipelines like Jenkins, and leverage tools like Helm charts and Kako."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The deployment mechanism has become more dynamic with the use of the product."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is the UI console. We are able to receive the resources from the console directly."
"Our pipeline integrates various monitoring tools like Fortify for security checks. Once the pipeline processes the code, the finished product is deployed on Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud. We ensure application setup and recovery by utilizing two separate clusters on OpenShift."
"The portability, moving from one platform to another, is easy."
"Credential not hidden, so people on the same group can view it."
"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."
"Some of the storage services and integrations with third-party tools should be made possible."
"This is a fairly expensive solution."
"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 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."
"It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory."
"The product’s integration with Windows containers and other third-party products needs improvement."
"Technical support could be a bit better."
"The installation and configuration procedure should be simplified."
"There is room for improvement in cluster-based queue monitoring and autoscaling."
"The general purpose solution tries to cater to too many customers so it is heavy."
"The service mesh integrations could improve the solution."
"Making it even more cost-effective could be explored."
"The effectiveness is satisfactory, and there haven't been any additional fees due to meeting demands. However, there's room for improvement in pricing, performance, and stability. Regarding the UI, it could be more user-friendly and integrated with various platforms. Currently, the UI lacks user-friendliness, especially for developers unfamiliar with container technology. Expecting them to create YAML files for security purposes is unrealistic without proper guidance or experience. This aspect needs improvement."
More Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is ranked 16th in PaaS Clouds with 7 reviews. Red Hat OpenShift is rated 8.4, while Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Red Hat OpenShift writes "Provides us with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud writes "Communication can be built on any cloud and that is a big advantage for customers". Red Hat OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Google Cloud, whereas Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is most compared with Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure and Amazon AWS. See our Red Hat OpenShift vs. Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud 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.