We performed a comparison between Google Kubernetes Engine and Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is more user-friendly than AWS or Azure. I can also easily scale out the service in the future when the number of customers grows. GKE is the leader of Kubernetes service and it can be easily updated. I love the tool's user interfaces."
"The feature that I like the most is the ease of use as compared to AWS. Its ease of use is very high, and I can quickly deploy clusters with a simple template."
"The main advantage of GKE is that it is a managed service. This means that Google is responsible for managing the master node in the Kubernetes cluster system. As a result, we can focus on deploying applications to the slaves, while Google handles any updates and security patches. The fact that GKE is fully integrated into the Google ecosystem, including solutions such as BigQuery and VertexAI. This makes it easier for us to integrate these tools into our process. This integration ultimately speeds up our time to market and reduces the time and effort spent on managing infrastructure. The managed aspect of GKE allows us to simply deploy and utilize it without having to worry about the technicalities of infrastructure management."
"The solution is available across AWS, GCP and Azure and is seamless."
"Stability is perfect for me."
"On the tip of a command, you can scale in or scale out, and it offers every robust platform to implement DevOps processes for your automation solutions. The product fully supports the IaC concept."
"The most valuable feature of Google Kubernetes Engine is how you can automatically scale and load balance."
"The product’s dashboard is very intuitive."
"Some of the primary features we leverage in the platform have to do with how we manage the cluster configurations, the properties, and the auto-scalability. These are the features that definitely provide value in terms of reducing overhead for the developers."
"The product is stable, reliable, and easy to use, from a well-known company, has a large volume handling capacity, and more and more organizations are moving to OpenShift."
"The platform is easy to scale as it supports Windows worker node."
"Centralized control of container resources is most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is that the solution can be deployed in the cloud which removes the expense of a server."
"The auto scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, determined from pre-prepared rules is the most valuable feature. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier, such as an ARB deployment. This really helped in rolling out releases without disrupting services for the end-users."
"Dashboards... give us all the details we need to see about the microservices."
"The architecture is the best. The solution is scalable if you are on a container-based solution."
"While the GKE cluster is secure, application-level security is an essential aspect that needs to be addressed. The security provided by GKE includes the security of communication between nodes within the cluster and the basic features of Kubernetes security. However, these features may not be sufficient for the security needs of an enterprise. Additional security measures must be added to ensure adequate protection. It has become a common practice to deploy security tools within a Kubernetes cluster. It would be ideal if these tools were included as part of the package, as this is a standard requirement in the industry. Thus, application-level security should be integrated into GKE for improved security measures."
"The product’s visible allocation feature needs improvement."
"Our critique is that we have to do too much work to get the cluster production-ready."
"There is a limitation for our infrastructure. It's very complex to see in one dashboard all the components and all the behavior on performance. I am looking for some additional tools for that. If I want to check the disk or file storage, it gets complex. There should be an integrated dashboard so that we can manage everything through a single pane."
"t is not very stable."
"I would like the solution to integrate with another Kubernetes product. I would also like it to monitor other platforms. It needs to also include scale-up container in the tool's next release."
"The user interface is a bit confusing sometimes. You need to navigate between the various consoles we have. It's hard to figure out where things are. It's frustrating. The documentation could be a bit better."
"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The stability needs improvement."
"The setup process is not great."
"The monitoring and logging could be improved."
"OpenShift has a pretty steep learning curve. It's not an easy tool to use. It's not only OpenShift but Kubernetes itself. The good thing is that Red Hat provides specific targeted training. There are five or six pieces of training where you can get certifications. The licenses for OpenShift are pretty expensive, so they could be cheaper because the competition isn't sleeping, and Red Hat must take that into account."
"OpenShift Container Platform could improve by having better integration."
"OpenShift Container Platform needs to work on integrations."
"The product monitoring tool does not work for us."
"My impression is that this solution is pretty expensive so I think the pricing plan could improve."
More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 37 reviews. Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0, while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Google Kubernetes Engine writes "The auto-scaling feature helps during peak hours, but the support is not great". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform writes "Provides automation that speeds up our process by 30% and helps us achieve zero downtime". Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, Kubernetes, Rancher Labs, VMware Tanzu Mission Control and Amazon Elastic Container Service, whereas Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon Elastic Container Service and Microsoft Defender for Cloud. See our Google Kubernetes Engine vs. Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform report.
See our list of best Container Management vendors.
We monitor all Container Management 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.
