Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CloudSphere vs Red Hat OpenShift comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

CloudSphere
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (22nd), Cloud Management (38th)
Red Hat OpenShift
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
PaaS Clouds (3rd), Server Virtualization Software (11th), Container Management (9th), Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms (5th), Agile and DevOps Services (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Cloud Infrastructure and Tools solutions, they serve different purposes. CloudSphere is designed for Cloud Migration and holds a mindshare of 2.3%, up 0.9% compared to last year.
Red Hat OpenShift, on the other hand, focuses on Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms, holds 6.4% mindshare.
Cloud Migration Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
CloudSphere2.3%
Azure NetApp Files10.6%
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP10.1%
Other77.0%
Cloud Migration
Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Red Hat OpenShift6.4%
Azure Stack22.0%
VMware Cloud Foundation18.9%
Other52.7%
Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

Muhammad Imran Ali Jan - PeerSpot reviewer
A highly scalable and stable tool that provides good technical support and enables users to manage and optimize resources
The product was handed over to us with pre-installed configurations. We just mounted our server in the rack and enabled the connectivity. The initial setup was quite easy to manage. We are using a private cloud to optimize our hospital management system. We have discussed with the vendor the solution's scalability from private to public cloud for our future needs. All the infrastructure was installed within 15 days.
Pratul Shukla - PeerSpot reviewer
Adopting a flexible and efficient approach with noticeable improvements in operational costs and continued challenges in job management
Currently, one of the biggest challenges we face is with services and jobs. For spawning batches, although it has crons, it is not easy to integrate with enterprise systems such as Autosys. The entire company uses Autosys, but we are not able to integrate it effectively. We need intermediate servers to run OC utility commands and initiate the cron job. We have to do a lot of modifications to ensure our batches work properly. With physical or virtual servers, even in AWS, we are able to write and manage multiple jobs. Managing batches in Red Hat OpenShift has been a significant challenge. Integrating third parties is a challenge with Red Hat OpenShift. For example, with Elasticsearch, onboarding itself was difficult, running file beats and dealing with routing issues. It is not straightforward, especially since we have some components in AWS as. AWS has many capabilities that come out of the box and are easier to work with compared to Red Hat OpenShift. Red Hat OpenShift's biggest disadvantage is they do not provide any private cloud setup where we can host on our site using their services. The main reason we went with Red Hat OpenShift was because it is a private cloud, and we have regulatory requirements that prevent us from using public cloud.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"When I started using CloudSphere, it wasn't mature, and it had multiple issues. For example, my team experienced server issues while using the solution, but recently, I noticed how much CloudSphere has improved. There used to be some latency issues with CloudSphere. It even gave error messages in the past when you select an option such as "the web server is not responding", but it has improved a lot, and now I don't get any errors from CloudSphere. What I like best about CloudSphere is that it has a lot of beneficial features, and it has a single pane for managing multi-cloud environments, which I find very helpful, and it's the main benefit you can get from CloudSphere."
"The product is helpful for the management, optimization, and utilization of resources."
"Provides multiple kinds of services for managing the clouds of multiple customers."
"For the customers I work with, it provides flexibility as far as storage is concerned, so it's security and access."
"We do not need to install any appliances or any agents."
"The security features of OpenShift are strong when in use of role-based access."
"It has features that enhance security, ease of deployment, and service exposure compared to Kubernetes."
"Red Hat OpenShift helped us with managing scaling up and scaling down."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"The virtualization of my APIs means I no longer have to pay VMware large amounts of money to only run in-house solutions."
"I am impressed with the product's security features."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the containers."
"Two stand-out features are the security model and value-add features that don't exist in Upstream Kubernetes."
 

Cons

"When we start the scanning of, for example, 500 servers, it will not handle the scan. We need to differentiate the jobs - for example, one job for 100 servers, a second job for another 100 servers, et cetera."
"The main issue I experienced from CloudSphere was recently resolved, but an area for improvement in the solution is that it lacks the functionality of migrating resources from one public cloud to another. If CloudSphere could provide that functionality, that would be very beneficial to users and companies."
"The next feature I would like to have full disclosure of what's being done with the data."
"The solution must have a single management console for the resources and VMs."
"There are quite a number of services that can't be deployed using CloudSphere."
"OpenShift's storage management could be better."
"The product’s integration with Windows containers and other third-party products needs improvement."
"The area for improvement is mostly in support for legacy applications."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift."
"My team has found some bugs in OpenShift due to continuous integration, and this is an area for improvement in the platform. RedHat should fix the bugs. Another area for improvement in OpenShift is that upgrading clusters can be challenging, resulting in downtime. Application support also needs improvement in OpenShift because the platform doesn't support all applications in the cloud. I'd like upgraded storage in the next release of OpenShift, especially when I need to do a DR exercise. It would also be good if the platform allows mirroring with another cluster, or more portability in terms of moving applications to another cluster."
"Some of the storage services and integrations with third-party tools should be made possible."
"It would be great if it supported Bitbucket repositories too."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is very expensive."
"It depends on how that model will be used. It might be anywhere between $4 and $15 per license per month. It’s less expensive than other options."
"It's important to start small because the solution is scalable. We can build our cluster and look at the bundle option, not the external subscriptions. Talking to the people at Red Hat can save us money."
"The product has reasonable pricing."
"I don't deal with the cost part, but I know that the cost is very high when compared to other products. They charge for CPU and memory, but we don't worry about it."
"We are currently using the open version, OKD. We plan to get the enterprise version in the future."
"The cost is quite high."
"We use the license-free version of Red Hat Openshift but we pay for the support."
"The solution is cost-effective."
"The model of pricing and buying licences is quite rigid. We are in the process of negotiating on demand pricing which will help us take advantage of the cloud as a whole."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Migration solutions are best for your needs.
872,922 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Logistics Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Legal Firm
6%
Financial Services Firm
27%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise40
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does OpenShift compare with Amazon AWS?
Open Shift makes managing infrastructure easy because of self-healing and automatic scaling. There is also a wonderful dashboard mechanism to alert us in case the application is over-committing or ...
Which would you recommend - Pivotal Cloud Foundry or OpenShift?
Pivotal Cloud Foundry is a cloud-native application platform to simplify app delivery. It is efficient and effective. The best feature is how easy it is to handle external services such as database...
What do you like most about OpenShift?
OpenShift facilitates DevOps practices and improves CI/CD workflows in terms of stability compared to Jenkins.
 

Also Known As

HyperCloud
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Affymetrix, Bell Helicopter, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, Porterville Unified School District, Interact for Health, VirtueCom, Warren Memorial Hospital, Front Porch, RMH Group, Meyers Nave, Intraworks, Information Technology, ETTE, Clackamas Community College
UPS, Cathay Pacific, Hilton
Find out what your peers are saying about Hewlett Packard Enterprise, NetApp, CTERA and others in Cloud Migration. Updated: October 2025.
872,922 professionals have used our research since 2012.