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."The most valuable feature is the instant availability of resources."
"We have not had any issues with the performance, or the stability."
"It is easy to use. It is also stable."
"The solution is very flexible, it is not limited to Microsoft solutions. It integrates well with other solutions, such as Oracle. There are a lot of templates we are able to use allowing us to reduce the time for configuration."
"The advantage of Microsoft Azure is its simplicity. It's easy to launch a project. However, the problem with this kind of solution is the reliability for the customers. You have to be sure to stay with Microsoft."
"Azure's Data Lake services are decent. I like AKS, and API Management is relatively straightforward to use. The security and SIEM options Azure offers are good. All the infrastructure services are easy to use and set up."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure is it has everything together in one place. It is one large tool with lots of small tools that are updated often."
"Great features at a good price."
"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."
"The deployment mechanism has become more dynamic with the use of the product."
"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 solution offers the most robust Kubernetes orchestration available."
"The portability, moving from one platform to another, is easy."
"The initial setup is easy."
"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."
"The security must be improved."
"Virtual networks might be improved by adding more rules for the validation of protocols and peripheral elements in security assurance."
"The integration pipeline could be a bit more broad in terms of applications."
"Integrate as a service. A lot of Microsoft software licensing options aren’t yet in Azure. Also, the ability to integrate with other technologies, such as other options on the market based on RISC Technologies."
"Lacks flexibility in terms of storage or resource allocation."
"Azure could be improved with better security. The world is changing and their security could be better. Compared to five years ago, many of these cloud systems are a lot better, especially since you can set up a private cloud and configure your services to make it more secure."
"It could be cheaper."
"Navigating the frequent changes in the interface has been a challenge, requiring effort to keep up with updates. Options or features that were once located in one window may unexpectedly move to another, making it hard to stay current with the changes."
"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 installation and configuration procedure should be simplified."
"The service mesh integrations could improve the solution."
"The general purpose solution tries to cater to too many customers so it is heavy."
"Technical support could be a bit better."
"There is room for improvement in cluster-based queue monitoring and autoscaling."
"Making it even more cost-effective could be explored."
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.