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

Infinite Blue vs Red Hat OpenShift comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Infinite Blue
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Rapid Application Development Software (38th), Low-Code Development Platforms (37th)
Red Hat OpenShift
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
57
Ranking in other categories
PaaS Clouds (3rd), Server Virtualization Software (8th), Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Infinite Blue and Red Hat OpenShift aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Infinite Blue is designed for Rapid Application Development Software and holds a mindshare of 0.1%, up 0.1% compared to last year.
Red Hat OpenShift, on the other hand, focuses on PaaS Clouds, holds 13.2% mindshare, up 12.9% since last year.
Rapid Application Development Software
PaaS Clouds
 

Featured Reviews

Logisthead67 - PeerSpot reviewer
A simple solution with an easy setup and good stability
The solution is simple. It's very easy to deploy, and there's no risk with sorting that out. It's very fast to develop the screens and the modelilng The solution is expensive. They should try to improve their pricing strategy. The user interface should add some more functionality in the next…
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

"The solution is simple. It's very easy to deploy, and there's no risk with sorting that out. It's very fast to develop the screens and the modelling."
"Scaling and uptime of the applications are positives."
"I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones."
"I love to automate everything and OpenShift was been born for that. It takes care of the network layer itself and I don't need to dive into it; I can work on a top level. Our project has numerous services designed to run in Docker containers, and we have run almost all pieces in OpenShift."
"It is a stable platform."
"It's cloud agnostic and the containerization and security features are outstanding."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the security context constraint (SCC). The solution’s security throughout the stack is good. And security context constraints provide port-level security. It's a granular level of control, where you can give privileges to certain users to work on certain applications."
"Valuable features include auto-recreate of pod if pod fails; fast rollback, with one click, to previous version."
"Its security is most valuable. It's by default secure, which is very important."
 

Cons

"The solution is expensive. They should try to improve their pricing strategy."
"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."
"We experienced issues around desktop security, that stopped us implementing a new feature that had been developed."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"We need some kind of a multi-cluster management solution from the Red Hat site."
"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."
"The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations."
"The area for improvement is mostly in support for legacy applications."
"Credential not hidden, so people on the same group can view it."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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."
"The cost is quite high."
"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 product's support is expensive. I would rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten."
"The licensing cost for OpenShift is expensive when compared to other products. RedHat also charges you additional costs apart from the standard licensing fees."
"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."
"OpenShift is really good when we need to start, but once we get to a certain scale, it becomes too expensive."
"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 Rapid Application Development Software solutions are best for your needs.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
34%
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

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

Progress Rollbase, Rollbase
No data available
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Pironet NDH, Jungle Lasers, Aintercarga SAS, ASPsoftware, Cloudselling
UPS, Cathay Pacific, Hilton
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, ServiceNow, OutSystems and others in Rapid Application Development Software. Updated: December 2024.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.