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 (23rd), Cloud Management (36th)
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 (12th), Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms (6th), 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 1.7%, up 0.8% compared to last year.
Red Hat OpenShift, on the other hand, focuses on Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms, holds 5.1% mindshare.
Cloud Migration Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
CloudSphere1.7%
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP12.4%
Azure NetApp Files12.2%
Other73.7%
Cloud Migration
Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Red Hat OpenShift5.1%
Azure Stack24.3%
VMware Cloud Foundation19.6%
Other51.0%
Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

Syed Hassan Ahmed - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables deployment of multiple tenants concurrently but we regularly get errors
CloudSphere is a good solution that works well. It can integrate with multiple clouds and manage all our customers. They still have a long way to go, but I think it makes things easier. It's essential to go through their documentation, otherwise it's quite tricky setting up the integration with the cloud. Once that's done, everything is very clear. CloudSphere serves its purpose of managing multiple customers for multiple clouds for the MSP program. But there are issues with their upgrades and their support team is a little slow to get a handoff. Added to that is the slowing down of the software over time which requires some back-end work. Taking all that into account, I rate this solution seven out of 10.
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

"We do not need to install any appliances or any agents."
"The product is helpful for the management, optimization, and utilization of resources."
"For the customers I work with, it provides flexibility as far as storage is concerned, so it's security and access."
"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."
"Provides multiple kinds of services for managing the clouds of multiple customers."
"I have seen a return on investment, and it depends upon the types and the nature of some of the most critical applications that have been hosted on the OpenShift infrastructure."
"The initial setup is simple, and OpenShift is open-source, so it's easy to install on any cloud platform."
"It has features that enhance security, ease of deployment, and service exposure compared to Kubernetes."
"Its security is most valuable. It's by default secure, which is very important."
"We are currently dealing with both local support and Red Hat support, and they have been amazing."
"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 concept of containers and scaling on demand is a feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat OpenShift."
"The most valuable feature is the auto scalers for all microservices. The feature allows us to place request limits and it is much cheaper than AWS."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"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 next feature I would like to have full disclosure of what's being done with the data."
"I had to frequently upgrade my cluster due to OpenShift's rolling updates every six months, which I found to be excessive."
"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."
"This is a fairly expensive solution."
"Its virtual upgrades are time-consuming."
"The interface could be simplified a bit more."
"It would be great if it supported Bitbucket repositories too."
"OpenShift requires a very expensive and complex infrastructure."
"One of the features that I've observed in Tanzu Mission Control is that I can manage multiple Kubernetes environments. For instance, one of my lines of business is using OpenShift OKD; another one wants to use Google Anthos, and somebody else wants to use VMware Tanzu. If I have to manage all these, Tanzu Mission Control is giving me the opportunity to completely manage all of my Kubernetes clusters, whereas, with OpenShift, I can only manage a particular area. I can't manage other Kubernetes clusters. I would like to have the option to manage all Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift."
 

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."
"The product’s pricing is expensive."
"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."
"The solution is cost-effective."
"OpenShift is really good when we need to start, but once we get to a certain scale, it becomes too expensive."
"My company makes payments towards the licensing costs attached to OpenShift."
"The pricing for OpenShift includes support and licensing, which costs approximately $400."
"We are currently using the open version, OKD. We plan to get the enterprise version in the future."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Migration solutions are best for your needs.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Logistics Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Healthcare Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
28%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
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 NetApp, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Nasuni and others in Cloud Migration. Updated: August 2025.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.