We performed a comparison between OpenShift Container Platform and Rancher Labs 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 best feature is the management for the port life cycle, which automatically recycles, pulls, and scales up and down based on needs and requests."
"More tools are available in OpenShift Container Platform to maintain and manage the clusters."
"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 solution is stable. However, it depends on the integrations of the solution on how stable it will be, such as what tools you integrate with."
"The operating system has a live update and is more secure than any other. It's made for Atomic OS, a lightweight OS new to the market. I also like the source-to-image capabilities. The customer can directly deploy their applications from the repository. It's a highly flexible and easy way to deploy into production."
"The most valuable features are the monitoring and logging functionalities."
"Technical support is good; they are fast and reliable."
"The usability and the developer experience. The platform has a centralized consultant that is easy to use for our development, operations and security teams."
"The solution is stable."
"The scalability potential is very good."
"The product is simple to use for a beginner."
"The most valuable feature of Rancher Labs is its user interface, which makes it easier to work with containers and deployment."
"The most valuable feature is its comprehensive support, easy resource scaling, compatibility with various OEMs, and seamless service integration."
"Rancher Labs is a very user-friendly tool."
"The tool's UI is very convenient enough to help you manage multiple clusters in the cloud or the company, making it a product with which you can manage different clusters and locations."
"The solution has a lot of good features, such as you can access the console and edit through the GUI. The dashboard and the UI are designed well, user-friendly, and easy to manage, and access."
"The setup process is not great."
"Another thing that bugs me is that they removed the software in NFS storage. I don't understand why because this is a common type of storage. I am having problems with that, so I wish they would put it back."
"OpenShift has certain restrictions in terms of managing the cluster when it's running on a public cloud. For example, identity and access management integration with the IM of AWS is quite difficult. It requires some open-source tools to integrate. This is one area where I always see room for improvement."
"We've encountered challenges when transitioning applications between these environments."
"OpenShift Container Platform needs to work on integrations."
"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."
"With the recent trend of cloud-native, fully managed serverless services, I don't see much documentation about how a customer should move from on-prem to the cloud, or what is the best way to do a lift-and-shift. Even if you are on AWS OCP, which is self-managed infra services, and you want to use the ROSA managed services, what is the best way to achieve that migration? I don't see documentation for these kinds of use cases from Red Hat."
"It is difficult to deploy the OpenShift cluster in a bare-metal environment."
"The solution could improve by adding more features in the dashboard, such as monitoring, scanning, and security. This would be a great benefit."
"One area for improvement in Rancher Labs is the development aspect."
"There needs to be an improvement in observability and microservice monitoring tools in Rancher Labs."
"If you have poor infrastructure, you will have issues with the tool."
"We're looking for something that is even easier to use. It's a bit complicated."
"We'd like their monitoring tool to be integrated by default."
"The biggest room for improvement in Rancher Labs would be to have a proper upgrading plan."
"I can't migrate to the newer version."
OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 36 reviews while Rancher Labs is ranked 5th in Container Management with 13 reviews. OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2, while Rancher Labs is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenShift Container Platform writes "Provides automation that speeds up our process by 30% and helps us achieve zero downtime". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rancher Labs writes "An easy-to-use user interface, which makes it easy to work with Kubernetes and containers". OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon Elastic Container Service and Kubernetes, whereas Rancher Labs is most compared with VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Docker, Amazon EKS, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE and Google Kubernetes Engine. See our OpenShift Container Platform vs. Rancher Labs 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.