Google Kubernetes Engine vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform comparison

Google Kubernetes Engine vs. Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

Download the complete report

Helped 831,997 peers since 2012

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

Google Kubernetes Engine

Ranking in Container Management

9th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Red Hat OpenShift Container...

Ranking in Container Management

1st

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Container Management category, the mindshare of Google Kubernetes Engine is 2.8%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is 31.5%, up from 26.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Container Management

Featured Reviews

Abhilash Gopidas

Deployment Manager at HealthEdge Software, Inc.

The auto-scaling feature helps during peak hours, but the support is not great

The product has no downtime. Automated scaling is a valuable feature. During peak hours, the datasets are on a higher volume. We need scaling in place. Otherwise, there's a degradation in the performance. We might sometimes miss data, or there will be no data sync between systems. Auto-scaling helps deal with performance needs during peak hours. There's no lag time for processing data.

Read full review

Vlado Velkovski

DevOps Architect at KIBS

Provides automation that speeds up our process by 30% and helps us achieve zero downtime

OpenShift has a pretty steep learning curve. It's not an easy tool to use. It's not only OpenShift but Kubernetes itself. The good thing is that Red Hat provides specific targeted training. There are five or six pieces of training where you can get certifications. The licenses for OpenShift are pretty expensive, so they could be cheaper because the competition isn't sleeping, and Red Hat must take that into account. There are a few versions of OpenShift. There is the normal OpenShift and an OpenShift Plus license. Red Hat could think of how to connect those two subscriptions because, with Red Hat Plus, you have one tool called ACM (Advanced Cluster Management), where you can manage multiple clusters from one place. We deployed this functionality by ourselves, but if you don't pay the license for Red Hat OpenShift Plus, you'll lack this functionality. If you have a multi-cloud environment and you have a lot of work to do, it would be a plus if the Red Had OpenShift Plus license came in a bundle with the regular solutions. This ACM tool should be available in the normal subscription, not just the Plus version. There are new versions on an almost weekly basis. I found myself that the upgrading of OpenShift clusters is not a task that will successfully finish every time. It's a simple and quick, but not reliable process. That's why we use multiple clusters. We use v4.10.3, but we want to move to v4.12.X. The upgrade process itself can fail, and we don't have backups of our OpenShift cluster because we have backups of all the Kubernetes manifests on GitHub. We destroy the cluster, bring up a new one quickly, and apply those scripts. The upgrade itself could be more resilient for us as administrators of OpenShift to be sure that it'll succeed and not occasionally fail. They can improve the reliability of their upgrade process. They also have implementations of some Red Hat-verified operators for a lot of products like Elasticsearch. They're good enough for development purposes, but some of the OpenShift operators still lack resilient production-grade configurations. Red Hat says that we have a few hundred operators, but I believe that only half of them are production-grade ready at this moment. They need to work much more on those operators to become more flexible because you can deploy all of them in development mode, but when we go to production grade and want to make specific changes to the operator and configuration, we lack those possibilities.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We appreciate that it is quite easy to set up a Kubernetes cluster in Google Cloud, using the managed services within this solution."

"GKE is easier to understand and use than Elastic Kubernetes Service."

"The main advantage of GKE is that it is a managed service. This means that Google is responsible for managing the master node in the Kubernetes cluster system. As a result, we can focus on deploying applications to the slaves, while Google handles any updates and security patches. The fact that GKE is fully integrated into the Google ecosystem, including solutions such as BigQuery and VertexAI. This makes it easier for us to integrate these tools into our process. This integration ultimately speeds up our time to market and reduces the time and effort spent on managing infrastructure. The managed aspect of GKE allows us to simply deploy and utilize it without having to worry about the technicalities of infrastructure management."

"The product has no downtime."

"Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) takes care of managing Kubernetes, including the main control plane. It also offers solutions for monitoring resources and handling external traffic, which is essential for us. Being a cloud-native solution, it relieves us from worrying about these operational aspects."

"On the tip of a command, you can scale in or scale out, and it offers every robust platform to implement DevOps processes for your automation solutions. The product fully supports the IaC concept."

"Before using this solution, it was a lot of manual tasks and a lot of people participated in the process."

"The most valuable aspect of Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) is its managed nature, which significantly reduces the burden on our platform team."

More Google Kubernetes Engine pros

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

"The initial setup process is easy."

"It automates rolling out new features, packaging the code, conducting security scans, and deploying to OpenShift."

"Technical support is good; they are fast and reliable."

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

"The most valuable feature for me in the OpenShift Container Platform is the option to manage different containers and environments and also being able to switch among them."

"It is easy to expand."

"The banking transactions, inquiries, and account opening have been the most valuable."

More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform pros

Cons

"I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten."

"There is room for improvement in this solution. For example, auto-scaling can be complex. We expect it to be easier to set up and manage, even for our customers."

"t is not very stable."

"The tool's configuration features need improvement."

"The monitoring part requires some serious improvements in Google Kubernetes Engine, as it does not have very good monitoring consoles."

"The notifications are not informative."

"I use the Firebase tool with GKE and it would be helpful if the solution can give notifications when we reach the budget limit."

"The management UI could be improved."

More Google Kubernetes Engine cons

"There is room for improvement with integration."

"I believe that the documentation part is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."

"We are not big customers of Red Hat, but sometimes, we have severe bugs. We are very innovative, and sometimes, we have to wait for a long time to get proper attention. Red Hat should improve on that."

"The product's interface is a bit buggy."

"Quality of support may be improved."

"Container Platform could be improved if we could aggregate logs out of the box instead of having to do it through integrations with other products."

"The initial setup can be hard."

"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."

More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We are planning to use external support, and hire a commercial partner for it."

"Currently, it costs around $1000 per month which sorted our deployment. So once we get more clients, having a huge suffix, costs can go up."

"The pricing for GKE is dependent on the type of machine or virtual machine (VM) that is selected for the nodes in the cluster. There is a degree of flexibility in choosing the specifications of the machine, such as the number of CPUs, GPUs, and so on. Google provides a variety of options, allowing the user to create the desired cluster composition. However, the cost can be quite steep when it comes to regional clusters, which are necessary for high availability and failover. This redundancy is crucial for businesses and is required to handle an increase in requests in case of any issues in one region, such as jumping to a different region in case of a failure in the Toronto region. While it may be tempting to choose the cheapest type of machines, this may result in a limited capacity and user numbers, requiring over-provisioning to handle additional requests, such as those for a web application."

"Pricing is a bit expensive compared to some other products, but it's acceptable."

"The price for Google Kubernetes Engine could be lower - I'd rate its pricing at three out of five."

"It is competitive, and it is not expensive. It is almost competitive with AWS and the rest of the cloud solutions. We are spending around 3K USD per month. There are four projects that are currently running, and each one is incurring a cost of around 3K USD."

"The product is a little bit expensive."

"I rate the product's price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price. The product is competitively priced."

More Google Kubernetes Engine pricing and cost advice

"We have to pay for the license."

"The license to use the OpenShift Container Platform is free. If you are capable with Java you can modify it."

"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."

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

"It largely depends on how much money they earn from the application being deployed; you don't normally deploy an app just for the purpose of having it. You must constantly look into your revenue and how much you spend every container, minute, or hour of how much it is working."

"The price is slightly on the higher side. It is something that can be worked on because most of the businesses now have margins."

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

"The product pricing is competitive and structured around vCPU subscriptions, aligning with our application requirements."

More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

831,997 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

23%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Google Kubernetes Engine?

The product has no downtime.

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Google Kubernetes Engine?

For pricing, Google is considered cheaper compared to AWS, making it suitable for smaller to medium companies concerning cost. I would rate the cost around four out of ten, where ten is the higher ...

What needs improvement with Google Kubernetes Engine?

The management UI could be improved. When looking at the web interface, it feels kind of slow due to the many features involved. The interface could definitely be faster.

Which is better - OpenShift Container Platform or VMware Tanzu Mission Control?

Red Hat Openshift is ideal for organizations using microservices and cloud environments. I like that the platform is auto-scalable, which saves overhead time for developers. I think Openshift can b...

What do you like most about OpenShift Container Platform?

The tool's most valuable features include high availability, scalability, and security. Other features like advanced cluster management, advanced cluster security, and Red Hat Quay make it powerful...

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OpenShift Container Platform?

OpenShift pricing varies by region. For example, a simple cluster with three nodes in DAL-10 might cost around $560 to $580 per month, subject to specific configurations like memory and CPU cores.

Akamai Connected Cloud (Linode) vs Google Kubernetes Engine

Comparisons

Compared 26% of the time

Rancher Labs vs Google Kubernetes Engine

Compared 12% of the time

VMware Tanzu Platform vs Google Kubernetes Engine

Compared 11% of the time

Kubernetes vs Google Kubernetes Engine

Compared 10% of the time

Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE vs Google Kubernetes Engine

Compared 9% of the time

More Google Kubernetes Engine Competitors

Amazon EKS vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

Compared 51% of the time

Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

Compared 15% of the time

VMware Tanzu Platform vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

Compared 10% of the time

Rancher Labs vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

Compared 4% of the time

Kubernetes vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

Compared 2% of the time

More Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Competitors

Product Reports

Google Kubernetes Engine

Download Google Kubernetes Engine product report

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform

Download Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform product report

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform report

Also Known As

GKE

No data available

Overview

Kubernetes Engine is a managed, production-ready environment for deploying containerized applications. It brings our latest innovations in developer productivity, resource efficiency, automated operations, and open source flexibility to accelerate your time to market.

Google

Red Hat® OpenShift® offers a consistent hybrid cloud foundation for building and scaling containerized applications. Benefit from streamlined platform installation and upgrades from one of the enterprise Kubernetes leaders.

Red Hat

Sample Customers

Philips Lighting, Alpha Vertex, GroupBy, BQ

Edenor, BMW, Ford, Argentine Ministry of Health

Google Kubernetes Engine vs. Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform