Cisco Container Platform [EOL] vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform comparison

"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."

"The product is stable, reliable, and easy to use, from a well-known company, has a large volume handling capacity, and more and more organizations are moving to OpenShift."

"It has been a good solution to deploy all containerized applications."

"The most valuable are security features, particularly when operating in the cloud."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is its scalability on demand, which allows for potentially lower costs, and Built-in resiliency."

"Autoscaling is an excellent feature that makes it very simple to scale our applications as required."

"The platform is easy to scale as it supports Windows worker node."

"Some of the primary features we leverage in the platform have to do with how we manage the cluster configurations, the properties, and the auto-scalability. These are the features that definitely provide value in terms of reducing overhead for the developers."

"The software is user-friendly and straightforward to use, which is favorable to a developer."

"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 product monitoring tool does not work for us."

"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."

"The setup process is not great."

"The solution does not work on a route-wise NFS."

"The interface has numerous UI bugs that need addressing."

"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."

"Metrics monitoring feature needs improvement."

"The product's setup process could be easier."

"The pricing and licensing are handled on an upper management level, and I'm not involved in that, but I understand the solution to be somewhat pricey."

"I'm not familiar with pricing or financial aspects. In terms of effort versus benefit, it's worth it."

"I'm an architect, so I have no involvement in the pricing and licensing of the platform."

"If you buy the product for a year or three, you get a lot of discounts...I feel that the product is worth its cost, especially since setting it up can be done with just a few clicks."

"The pricing is a bit more expensive than expected."

"The solution is expensive, and I rate it an eight out of ten. There is a subscription called OpenShift Plus, which offers additional features and products the vendor provides to complement the OpenShift Container Platform. These include ACM, Red Hat Quay, and Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation."

"The product is expensive."

"OpenShift Container Platform is highly-priced."