We performed a comparison between Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and OpenShift based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."The platform's high scalability is one of its biggest advantages."
"The serverless capability and auto scale feature are the most valuable."
"The product serves the purpose of helping streamline our company's application deployment and scaling processes."
"Integration and automation are the best features of the solution."
"The product’s most valuable features are ease of use and automation."
"The most valuable feature is the autoscaling and self-healing."
"I have enjoyed working with all the features."
"AKS is easy to use. We can scale up and down as needed with AKS, which saves us money on our cloud costs."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the containers."
"Key features are WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure and the git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"What I like best about OpenShift is that it can reduce some of the costs of having multiple applications because you can just move them into small container applications. For example, applications don't need to run for twenty days, only to be used up by Monday. Through OpenShift, you can move some of the small applications into any cloud. I also find the design of OpenShift good."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the security context constraint (SCC). The solution’s security throughout the stack is good. And security context constraints provide port-level security. It's a granular level of control, where you can give privileges to certain users to work on certain applications."
"Security is also an important part of this solution. By default, things are running with limited privileges and securely confined to their own resources. This way, different users and projects can all use the same infrastructure."
"The developers seem to like the source-to-image feature. That makes it easy for them to deploy an application from code into containers, so they don't have to think about things. They take it straight from their code into a containerized application. If you don't have OpenShift, you have to build the container and then deploy the container to, say, EKS or something like that."
"Scaling and uptime of the applications are positives."
"It can be tough to access the servers when onboarding."
"More control over Infra scanning can be introduced."
"The solution should improve its UI and cost."
"It would be nice if they could handle the management of personal information more efficiently."
"In terms of cost perspective, they could make the product more affordable."
"We would like to see the addition of a service report from the server for this solution, so that we can monitor the health of server operations."
"The technical support could be faster."
"I would like to see a graphical user interface."
"It would be great if it supported Bitbucket repositories too."
"Latency and performance are two areas of concern in OpenShift where improvements are required."
"An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift."
"Documentation and technical support could be improved. The product is good, but when we raise a case with support—say we are having an image issue—the support is not really up to the mark. It is difficult to get support... When we raise a case, their support people will hesitate to get on a call or a screen-sharing session. That is a major drawback when it comes to OpenShift."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"Some of the storage services and integrations with third-party tools should be made possible."
"The area for improvement is mostly in support for legacy applications."
"OpenShift can improve monitoring. Sometimes there are issues. Additionally, the solution could benefit from protective tools if something was to happen in our network."
More Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is ranked 13th in Container Security with 32 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is rated 8.2, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) writes "Decreases administrative burdens and costs, has good diagnostic tools, and is easy to deploy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenShift writes "Provides us with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints". Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, SUSE Rancher, Qualys VMDR, Tenable.io Container Security and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI).
We monitor all Container Security 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.
