We performed a comparison between Amazon Elastic Container Service and 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."Amazon EC2 Container Service is a stable solution."
"The solution has good performance."
"ECS is a useful platform."
"What I really like about Amazon ECS is its simplicity and ease of use. Amazon also has really good security."
"For Amazon EC2 Container Service, providing the ability for users to select specific processor, memory, disk, and interface types might be an ideal feature. But, the practicality of offering all possible physical combinations is nearly impossible due to the underlying physical machines. AWS and Azure organize options into groups based on essential components like powerful processors or critical interfaces, considering physical restrictions. While expanding these choices is conceivable, it may not be feasible from a financial and practical perspective. Customers generally comprehend this limitation, as even in their own data centers, exact physical machine requirements are often a result of a combination of factors such as price, availability, and new machine generations."
"ECS is flexible and easy to use."
"The tool helps us with maneuverability. Its most valuable feature is autoscaling."
"They handle the backup process quite well. They automatically encapsulate it, including container backups, without relying heavily on the client's involvement. This is a significant advantage compared to other providers where clients often need to manage the process more independently. It's a feature that I find suitable and beneficial."
"The platform is easy to scale as it supports Windows worker node."
"The software is user-friendly and straightforward to use, which is favorable to a developer."
"It’s user-friendly."
"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."
"On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."
"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."
"Centralized control of container resources is most valuable."
"Everything is packaged into OpenShift Container Platform."
"The solution must improve backup and compatibility around OS like Windows and Mac."
"The orchestration of the workloads running in ECS needs improvement."
"The solution needs to improve backup and pricing."
"After the load balancer gets attached to Amazon Elastic Container Service clusters, I can't modify, remove, or replace it later."
"In the next release, they could add some customization options for high computer workloads."
"The solution needs to be more usable."
"Amazon Elastic Container Service’s initial setup is a bit difficult."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing of Amazon EC2 Container Service."
"The product monitoring tool does not work for us."
"There is room for improvement with integration."
"In my experience, the issues are not always simply technical. They do stem from technical challenges, but they struggle with the topic of adoption. When you encounter all of the customer pull, there are normally several tiers of your client pop that can adopt either the fundamental features or a little more advanced ones. The majority of the time, the challenge is determining how to drive adoption, how to sell the product to the customer, and how much time they can spend to really utilize those advanced features. If we get into much more detail, but this is from my perspective as the platform engineer and not the end customer, the ability of the end user to be able to debug potential issues with their application That is arguably the most important, let's say, work throughput in my area."
"We've encountered challenges when transitioning applications between these environments."
"It can take 10 to 15 minutes to deploy a microservice. The CI/CD process takes a long time, and if it's because of OCP, that is something that can be changed."
"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."
"Things are there and the documentation is there, however, there still needs to be quick guides available."
More Amazon Elastic Container Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon Elastic Container Service is ranked 8th in Container Management with 46 reviews while OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 36 reviews. Amazon Elastic Container Service is rated 8.4, while OpenShift Container Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon Elastic Container Service writes "An easy to compute solution that can be used to take complete workloads to the cloud". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenShift Container Platform writes "Provides automation that speeds up our process by 30% and helps us achieve zero downtime". Amazon Elastic Container Service is most compared with Microsoft Azure Container Service, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Linode and Google Kubernetes Engine, whereas OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Rancher Labs and Kubernetes. See our Amazon Elastic Container Service vs. 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.
