We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure 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."Microsoft has a lot of partners in this area, and they have a lot of information available online, so it's easy to get support."
"Azure offers broad compatibility with both structured and unstructured data. For example, we use PostgreSQL for storing Azure's official data and manage various types of data, including tabular and image data, accommodating the storage of all data types we handle. So, in many ways, Azure simplified the data storage and management needs."
"There is the potential to scale."
"The most valuable feature is the interface."
"Active Directory is a good feature. The infrastructure features that Azure provides are also good."
"I like the ExpressRoute because that makes it easy to configure connectivity to Azure-hosted services."
"Microsoft Azure is an optimized solution when we compare it to any other particular cloud solution."
"The most valuable feature is the possibility of using Microsoft and non-Microsoft services on one environment."
"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."
"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 initial setup is easy."
"The deployment mechanism has become more dynamic with the use of the product."
"The solution offers the most robust Kubernetes orchestration available."
"The portability, moving from one platform to another, is easy."
"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."
"It should have cost optimization tools. Customers are required to use third-party applications to avoid usage complications."
"It is constantly updating. There are weekly releases, sometimes daily releases, and there should be fewer that are consolidated into one."
"At this point, the latency is too high to use Azure in our production environment."
"I would recommend some enhancement regarding integration features."
"We had issues with the Mobile Service ORM and the Azure SQL Database (cloud version of SQL Server). At times, the queries that are created automatically from the ORM mapping are not very well optimized for this database and that can lead to performance and stability issues. On occasion, the connection manager from the ORM does not handle the database connections very well."
"The solution’s learning curve could be improved."
"Any time you use a cloud service, there are increased security risks. If you want more security, you have to have private hosting."
"Maybe Azure could add an address code to create your analysis without SQL or Python because some business users don't want it to code. So it's good to have a service application that connects to the data lake to conduct analysis and simplify the business process."
"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."
"The service mesh integrations could improve the solution."
"The installation and configuration procedure should be simplified."
"There is room for improvement in cluster-based queue monitoring and autoscaling."
"Making it even more cost-effective could be explored."
"The general purpose solution tries to cater to too many customers so it is heavy."
"Technical support could be a bit better."
More Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure is ranked 1st in PaaS Clouds with 299 reviews while Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is ranked 16th in PaaS Clouds with 7 reviews. Microsoft Azure is rated 8.4, while Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is rated 8.2. 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 Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud writes "Communication can be built on any cloud and that is a big advantage for customers". Microsoft Azure is most compared with Google Firebase, Amazon AWS, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Pivotal Cloud Foundry and SAP Cloud Platform, whereas Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is most compared with Google Cloud and Amazon AWS. See our Microsoft Azure 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.