We performed a comparison between Cisco Container Platform and 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."
"Dashboards... give us all the details we need to see about the microservices."
"The tool's most valuable features include high availability, scalability, and security. Other features like advanced cluster management, advanced cluster security, and Red Hat Quay make it powerful for businesses. It also comes with features like OpenShift Virtualization."
"Openshift is a very developer-friendly product."
"It is very lightweight and can be deployed very fast, especially when it comes to containers."
"The most valuable features are the monitoring and logging functionalities."
"OpenShift provides tools that tell me everything I have on a container, and I can make it on-premise or on a cloud infrastructure."
"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 most valuable are security features, particularly when operating in the cloud."
"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."
"The setup process is not great."
"The product monitoring tool does not work for us."
"I want to see more incorporation of native automation features; then, we could write a code, deploy it directly to OpenShift, and allow it to take care of the automated process. Using this method, we could write one application and have elements copy/pasted to other applications in the development process."
"We encounter difficulties while accessing the environment and managing the cluster. This particular area needs improvement."
"One area for improvement is that we can't currently run Docker inside a container, as it clashes with security consents. It would be good if we could change that."
"OpenShift Container Platform could improve by having better integration."
"The UI could be more user-friendly to drive tasks more effectively through the interface."
"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."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Container Platform is ranked 20th in Container Management while OpenShift Container Platform is ranked 1st in Container Management with 36 reviews. Cisco Container Platform is rated 8.0, while 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 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 OpenShift Container Platform is most compared with Amazon EKS, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE, Amazon Elastic Container Service and Portainer.
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.
