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 SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

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

IBM Cloud Private
Ranking in PaaS Clouds
20th
Average Rating
6.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
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
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
Server Virtualization Software (8th), Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, 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 13.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
PaaS Clouds
 

Featured Reviews

CristianIriazabal - PeerSpot reviewer
A solution that ranks in the top five and integrates well with API Connect
One issue with the solution is latency because there is lag time when we connect from Argentina to IBM's data centers in Washington and Dallas. It would be a benefit to have a data center in Latin America. The solution does not offer many routes over the cloud that are available with other solutions such as AWS which is a leader in the industry.
Mikhael Ibrahim - PeerSpot reviewer
Seamlessly monitor microservices with streamlined DevOps capabilities
Most benefit from it, however, I work with Kubernetes, and installing Vanilla Kubernetes is easy. That said, it introduces many tools that need to be set up individually. OpenShift comes ready out of the box, with all tools installed and configured. Red Hat certifies and confirms that all the components are compatible with each other. OpenShift's superior dashboard is a notable strength, especially when compared to Kubernetes. The integrated DevOps capabilities, such as pipelines and the container registry, are extremely beneficial. Additionally, its capability to monitor microservices and containers with integrated tools like Prometheus is a major advantage. The horizontal pod scaling exceeds the scalability features I found in Kubernetes.

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."
"The most valuable attribute is the platform's ability to consistently deliver high reliability."
"We have control of the ESXi."
"Excellent technical support."
"Key features are WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure and the git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure."
"We have found the cluster management function to be very good with this product."
"The concept of containers and scaling on demand is a feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat OpenShift."
"Two stand-out features are the security model and value-add features that don't exist in Upstream Kubernetes."
"OpenShift offers robust tools for monitoring application traffic, allowing us to analyze client requests and other business-related metrics."
"A valuable feature of Red Hat OpenShift is its ability to handle increased loads by automatically adding nodes."
"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."
"Its interface is good. The other part is the seamless integration with the stack that I have. Because my stack is mostly of Red Hat, which is running on top of VMware virtualization, I have had no issues with integrating both of these and trying to install them. We had a seamless integration with the other non-Red Hat products as well."
 

Cons

"One issue with the solution is latency because there is lag time when we connect."
"The support and pricing need to improve."
"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."
"lacking in multi-cloud management."
"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."
"The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations."
"One area for improvement is the documentation. They need to make it a little bit more user-friendly. Also, if you compare certain features and the installation process with Rancher, Rancher is simpler."
"OpenShift requires a very expensive and complex infrastructure."
"If we can have a GUI-based configuration with better flexibility then it will be great."
"The GUI could have more capabilities, particularly around virtualization."
"The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications... They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore."
"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."
"This is a fairly expensive solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay annual licensing fees."
"I rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten."
"The solution is expensive."
"In general, the cost is on the higher side."
"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."
"The licensing cost for OpenShift is expensive when compared to other products. RedHat also charges you additional costs apart from the standard licensing fees."
"We use the license-free version of Red Hat Openshift but we pay for the support."
"OpenShift is really good when we need to start, but once we get to a certain scale, it becomes too 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 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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which PaaS Clouds solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Recruiting/Hr Firm
25%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Real Estate/Law Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
33%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
7%
 

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: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.