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

IBM Cloud Private vs Red Hat OpenShift comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Cloud Private
Ranking in PaaS Clouds
20th
Average Rating
6.8
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat OpenShift
Ranking in PaaS Clouds
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the PaaS Clouds category, the mindshare of IBM Cloud Private is 0.7%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat OpenShift is 13.4%, up from 12.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
PaaS Clouds
 

Featured Reviews

Mustafa Kavcioglu - PeerSpot reviewer
Oct 20, 2021
Beneficial for compliance issues, great support; there are defects around multi-cloud management
Initially, we were using the platform for POC, carrying out tests. We've recently started delivering our main banking applications and mobile banking app on the Cloud Private platform. Half of our main banking services are now on that platform. I am the administrator of the platform and we provide…
Petr Bunka - PeerSpot reviewer
May 22, 2024
Used for runtime or application migration, transitioning from classic application servers
We use Red Hat OpenShift for runtime or application migration, transitioning from classic application servers and configuration restore machines The solution offers ease with which we can define how to run applications and configure them. It's much more convenient than creating a virtual machine…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Our core banking process was monolithic. To address this, we transitioned to a microservices-based architecture. Leveraging Microsoft technologies, including Terminals version 23, we’ve revamped our banking operations. Not all services are microservices; some remain monolithic for simplicity. Containerization is pivotal, with OpenShift (based on Kubernetes and Docker) managing our microservices."
"The product's framework is good, it integrates well with API Connect, and the private cloud allows for use in any location."
"We have control of the ESXi."
"Excellent technical support."
"The most valuable attribute is the platform's ability to consistently deliver high reliability."
"The scalability of OpenShift combined with Kubernetes is good. At least from the software standpoint, it becomes quite easy to handle the scalability through configuration. You need to constantly monitor the underlying infrastructure and ensure that it has adequate provisioning. If you have enough infrastructure, then managing the scalability is quite easy which is done through configuration."
"Self-provisioning support saves a lot of time and unnecessary work from the system administrator who can use this time to run and monitor the infrastructure. For the developer, this means less time waiting for the provisioning and excellent flexibility for development, testing, and production. Also, in such systems it is easy for developers to monitor applications even after deployment."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the containers."
"OpenShift offers more stability than Kubernetes."
"OpenShift is based on Kubernetes and we try to use all the Kubernetes objects of OpenShift. We don't use features that are specific to OpenShift, except internal certificates for the services. The one feature that is missing from Kubernetes and that is really useful in OpenShift is the lifecycle of the cluster and the ease of installation. We use VMware and VMware integration internally with the OpenShift installer, which is very good. With OpenShift it's easy to spin up or scale out a cluster."
"The solution is easy to scale."
"Overall, the solution's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is excellent."
"The initial setup is simple, and OpenShift is open-source, so it's easy to install on any cloud platform."
 

Cons

"One issue with the solution is latency because there is lag time when we connect."
"Auto-scaling and managing pod scaling in the microservices architecture, a core feature of IBM Cloud Private, can pose challenges, especially when dealing with larger volumes of traffic."
"lacking in multi-cloud management."
"I've noticed that the satellite services layer requires some improvement compared to platforms like Azure or Microsoft. While it's in development, I believe the satellite layer has room for enhancement. Additionally, the DevOps layer could benefit from closer integrations, especially for using external applications like Jenkins."
"The support and pricing need to improve."
"One glaring flaw is how OpenShift handles operators. Sometimes operators are forced to go into a particular namespace. When you do that, OpenShift creates an installation plan for everything in that namespace. These operators may be completely separate from each other and have nothing to do with each other, but now they are tied at the hip. You can't upgrade one without upgrading all of them. That's a huge mistake and highly problematic."
"The whole area around the hybrid cloud could be improved. I would like to deploy a Red Hat OpenShift cluster on-premise and on the cloud, then have Red Hat do the entire hybrid cloud management."
"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."
"OpenShift's storage management could be better."
"Latency and performance are two areas of concern in OpenShift where improvements are required."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"The solution needs to support the new features in Kubernetes more quickly."
"The latest 4.0 version of OpenShift disabled a few of the features we previously made use of, although this wasn't a huge deal."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive."
"In general, the cost is on the higher side."
"I rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten."
"We pay annual licensing fees."
"The pricing is standard; the solution isn't particularly expensive or affordable."
"Pricing of OpenShift depends on the number of nodes and who is hosting it."
"We use the license-free version of Red Hat Openshift but we pay for the support."
"We had a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) license for all our servers' operating systems. By having multiple Red Hat products together, you can negotiate costs and leverage on having a sort of enterprise license agreement to reduce the overall outlay or TCO."
"It's expensive. It may be cheaper to invest in building Vanilla Kubernetes, especially if security is not the number one motivation or requirement. Of course, that's difficult, and in some business areas, such as banking, that's not something you can put as a second priority. In other situations, a Vanilla Kubernetes with a sufficiently strong team can be cheaper and almost as effective."
"The product has reasonable pricing."
"This solution is fairly expensive but comes at an average cost compared to other solutions in the market."
"Depending on the extent of the product use, licenses are available for a range of time periods, and are renewable at the end of the period."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which PaaS Clouds solutions are best for your needs.
814,763 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Recruiting/Hr Firm
21%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Real Estate/Law Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
34%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Cloud Private?
Our core banking process was monolithic. To address this, we transitioned to a microservices-based architecture. Leveraging Microsoft technologies, including Terminals version 23, we’ve revamped ou...
What needs improvement with IBM Cloud Private?
I've noticed that the satellite services layer requires some improvement compared to platforms like Azure or Microsoft. While it's in development, I believe the satellite layer has room for enhance...
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

ICP
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company
UPS, Cathay Pacific, Hilton
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Cloud Private vs. Red Hat OpenShift and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
814,763 professionals have used our research since 2012.