We performed a comparison between Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and OpenShift based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."The serverless capability and auto scale feature are the most valuable."
"The solution is a managed Kubernetes, so much of the maintenance in the control plane is handled automatically by the cloud service provider."
"The most valuable features of AKS are rollback updates, high availability, easy management, speedy execution and deployment."
"We like how easy it is to create the resources in this solution, thanks to how easy the UI is to use."
"The solution's technical support is excellent."
"It employs high availability."
"The tool is budget-friendly."
"It is appealing to us due to its complexity, which aligns well with our requirements."
"The solution is easy to scale."
"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 love to automate everything and OpenShift was been born for that. It takes care of the network layer itself and I don't need to dive into it; I can work on a top level. Our project has numerous services designed to run in Docker containers, and we have run almost all pieces in OpenShift."
"I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones."
"I am impressed with the product's security features."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"Security is also an important part of this solution. By default, things are running with limited privileges and securely confined to their own resources. This way, different users and projects can all use the same infrastructure."
"Its security is most valuable. It's by default secure, which is very important."
"I would like to see a graphical user interface."
"There are a lot of features that should be included with the AKS."
"It just loses out because you have less access to it programmatically, with less technical or customizable access."
"I would like to see Azure implement something like the K9 terminal for interacting with Kubernetes clusters. It's a user-friendly CLI interface."
"The engineering team can reduce the management of the platform itself by improving the data plane part of the system to upload more management."
"The product’s cost could be reduced."
"More control over Infra scanning can be introduced."
"Unfortunately, when a microservice fails, Azure can take up to 60 seconds to broadcast an alert to the monitoring agents."
"The metrics in OpenShift can use improvement."
"Credential not hidden, so people on the same group can view it."
"OpenShift's storage management could be better."
"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."
"It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory."
"OpenShift could improve by providing the ability to integrate with public cloud platforms. This way we can easily use the services that these platforms offer. For instance, Amazon AWS. However, all the three major hyper-scalers solutions offer excellent DevOps and CI/CD tooling. If there was an easy way to integrate with them it would be beneficial. We need a way to easily integrate with the monitoring and dashboard services that they provide."
"The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications... They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore."
"An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift."
More Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is ranked 13th in Container Security with 32 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is rated 8.2, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) writes "Decreases administrative burdens and costs, has good diagnostic tools, and is easy to deploy". 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 Kubernetes Service (AKS) is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, SUSE Rancher, Qualys VMDR, Tenable.io Container Security and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI).
We monitor all Container Security 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.