We performed a comparison between Cisco Container Platform and Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Amazon Web Services (AWS), VMware and others in Container Management."The most valuable feature is definitely the fact that you can use a single platform to deploy to different resource providers. Right now, the version I'm using has vSphere and AWS, but I know in the future they're planning on adding more. The ability to deploy clusters on-prem or to any number of public cloud providers is really valuable because you don't need to relearn or switch platforms to switch resource providers."
"OpenShift is a user-friendly container platform with a solid GUI that helps you follow what is going on and gives you an overview of all your clusters. It's more user-friendly than the Kubernetes itself. The interface helps you learn the platform and provides access to some features or specific comments."
"The most valuable feature for me in the OpenShift Container Platform is the option to manage different containers and environments and also being able to switch among them."
"The most valuable features are the monitoring and logging functionalities."
"Technical support is good; they are fast and reliable."
"More tools are available in OpenShift Container Platform to maintain and manage the clusters."
"Autoscaling is an excellent feature that makes it very simple to scale our applications as required."
"The most valuable are security features, particularly when operating in the cloud."
"OpenShift provides tools that tell me everything I have on a container, and I can make it on-premise or on a cloud infrastructure."
"One thing that is a little bit annoying about Cisco Container Platform is that for each cluster you create you have to go through the same web form each time. If you're creating two identical clusters, you still have to go through that web form twice."
"There is room for improvement with integration."
"The product's interface is a bit buggy."
"OpenShift Container Platform could improve by having better integration."
"The price needs to be improved in OpenShift Container Platform. When I choose this, the product is the first factor that we have to make a long analysis to compare the real cost for the other services. However, price is high."
"The product monitoring tool does not work for us."
"The complexity of the installation could be reduced. While we got the necessary support, the instructions could be clearer."
"Things are there and the documentation is there, however, there still needs to be quick guides available."
"Container Platform could be improved if we could aggregate logs out of the box instead of having to do it through integrations with other products."
More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Cisco Container Platform is ranked 20th in Container Management while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 37 reviews. Cisco Container Platform is rated 8.0, while Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Container Platform writes "Enables the deployment/management of Kubernetes clusters from multiple resource providers at one location". 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". Cisco Container Platform is most compared with Kubernetes and VMware Tanzu Mission Control, 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 Diamanti.
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.