What users are saying about

Amazon Web Services vs OpenShift

Amazon Web Services

335 Ratings

OpenShift

Top Rated
43 Ratings

Amazon Web Services

335 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.8 out of 101

Based on 335 reviews and ratings

OpenShift

Top Rated
43 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.5 out of 101

Based on 43 reviews and ratings

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

Amazon Web Services

AWS is like the IBM of cloud infrastructure. It's hard to really go wrong with it. If you do, it's probably your own fault.

Read full review

No photo available
Verified User
View all 33 answers on this topic

OpenShift

OpenShift proved valuable in spinning up environments quickly with specific requirements. This enabled the team to evaluate tools quickly without having to request resources from other departments, develop proof of concept solutions away from our production environment, work collaboratively as part of smaller teams and ultimately to be as creative and innovative as possible.

Read full review

No photo available
Verified User
View all 13 answers on this topic

Feature Rating Comparison

Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)

Amazon Web Services
8.3
OpenShift
—
Service-level Agreement (SLA) uptime
Amazon Web Services
8.9
OpenShift
—
Dynamic scaling
Amazon Web Services
9.1
OpenShift
—
Elastic load balancing
Amazon Web Services
8.7
OpenShift
—
Pre-configured templates
Amazon Web Services
7.6
OpenShift
—
Monitoring tools
Amazon Web Services
7.5
OpenShift
—
Pre-defined machine images
Amazon Web Services
7.9
OpenShift
—
Operating system support
Amazon Web Services
7.9
OpenShift
—
Security controls
Amazon Web Services
8.4
OpenShift
—

Platform-as-a-Service

Amazon Web Services
—
OpenShift
9.1
Ease of building user interfaces
Amazon Web Services
—
OpenShift
9.9
Scalability
Amazon Web Services
—
OpenShift
9.6
Platform management overhead
Amazon Web Services
—
OpenShift
7.5
Workflow engine capability
Amazon Web Services
—
OpenShift
8.9
Platform access control
Amazon Web Services
—
OpenShift
9.6
Services-enabled integration
Amazon Web Services
—
OpenShift
9.2
Development environment creation
Amazon Web Services
—
OpenShift
9.7
Development environment replication
Amazon Web Services
—
OpenShift
9.7
Issue monitoring and notification
Amazon Web Services
—
OpenShift
9.0
Issue recovery
Amazon Web Services
—
OpenShift
8.0
Upgrades and platform fixes
Amazon Web Services
—
OpenShift
8.9

Pros

  • The development and administration tools work well, including a consistent API and adequate management console. In terms of business process, it provided an effective "escape valve" for new product development that would have been much more onerous to deploy if we had to provision physical hardware and arrange for associated IT resources.

Read full review

No photo available
Verified User
View all 33 answers on this topic
  • Ability to rapidly create application hosting environments
  • Security-first mindset with SELinux and limited ports open by default
  • Rich ecosystem of tools, frameworks, and languages. While most PaaS environments are just now moving to a Polyglot platform, OpenShift has been doing it from day one.

Read full review

Isaac Christoffersen profile photo
Isaac Christoffersen
View all 13 answers on this topic

Cons

  • AWS has a record of occasional severe outages, which has a cascading effect on the large number of high-profile services that now run on its infrastructure. Despite the spectacular nature of these outages, it is unlikely that a self-managed data center would achieve significantly better uptime.
  • It is also the case that AWS outages can be mitigated with effective use of multiple deployment 'zones' and regions. This is something that any mission-critical application should be doing anyway as part of disaster recovery preparations.

Read full review

No photo available
Verified User
View all 33 answers on this topic
  • Improved monitoring of the stack. Difficult to see how the different layers can be impacted and correlate events.
  • OpenShift + Docker deployment strategies - ability to move application workloads between different deployments such as developer environments, other cloud providers.
  • More commercial supported applications similar to Drupal, Wordpress, EnterpriseDB, MongoDB, AppDynamics, etc.

Read full review

Isaac Christoffersen profile photo
Isaac Christoffersen
View all 13 answers on this topic

Likelihood to Renew

Amazon Web Services9.4
Based on 10 answers
This is the only hosting solution I am using and I am not gonna look for any other because I am used to it and it meets my requirements: easy to use without compromising on control I have over my infrastructure. Also, I do live variety of AWS services.

Read full review

Andrew Tabit profile photo
Andrew Tabit
View all 10 answers on this topic
OpenShift8.7
Based on 3 answers
Leverage OpenShift Online constantly at both the free and paid tiers. While AWS is convenient, it often brings more administration than I want to deal with for a quick application (i.e. Drupal or Wordpress blog). OpenShift also simplifies the DNS registration and ability to share application environments with team members

Read full review

Isaac Christoffersen profile photo
Isaac Christoffersen
View all 3 answers on this topic

Usability

Amazon Web Services9.0
Based on 3 answers
The management console is the weak part of the service in my experience. It is adequate but slow.

Read full review

No photo available
Verified User
View all 3 answers on this topic
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Reliability and Availability

Amazon Web Services9.0
Based on 1 answer
Availability is very good, with the exception of occasional spectacular outages.

Read full review

No photo available
Verified User
View all 1 answers on this topic
OpenShift5.5
Based on 1 answer
No answer on this topic is available.

Performance

AWS does not provide the raw performance that you can get by building your own custom infrastructure. However, it is often the case that the benefits of specialized, high-performance hardware do not necessarily outweigh the significant extra cost and risk. Performance as perceived by the user is very different from raw throughput.

Read full review

No photo available
Verified User
View all 33 answers on this topic
No answers on this topic

Support

Amazon Web Services3.0
Based on 3 answers
unless you paid the premium, no support at all

Read full review

No photo available
Verified User
View all 3 answers on this topic
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Implementation

Amazon Web Services10.0
Based on 3 answers
The API's were very well documented and was Janova's main point of entry into the services.

Read full review

Brian Lusenhop profile photo
Brian Lusenhop
View all 3 answers on this topic
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Alternatives Considered

We also looked at Rackspace but was attracted to AWS by the breadth of services available at comparable cost and reliability.

Read full review

No photo available
Verified User
View all 33 answers on this topic
Cloud Foundry is open-source PaaS, started by VMware and spun out with other VMware-owned open-source code into EMC and VMware's Pivotal Software subsidiary. The Cloud Controller component is responsible for all management tasks. Being the main end point for the Cloud Foundry REST API, it uses the UAA module to authenticate and authorize users. Health Manager monitors the status of applications and takes appropriate actions, when it changes.
  1. OpenShift works on the Red Hat operating system only, while Cloud Foundry can run on all major Linux-like systems and has interfaces for most popular IaaS providers.
  2. Cloud Foundry natively supports Heroku buildpacks, a large collection of ready-to-use services.
  3. Though OpenShift uses cartridges for the same purpose, migration from a public Heroku platform to a private PaaS will not be as easy.
  4. Cloud Foundry has good integration with VMware’s products, including support for vCloud migration and the vSphere hypervisor. In its turn, OpenShift is well-integrated with Red Hat’s products.
  5. Cloud Foundry uses Warden containers, while OpenShift uses Docker containers, which have a different kind of abstraction.
  6. Out-of-the-box, OpenShift supports deploying applications through a Git repository, hot deploys, and auto scaling. Cloud Foundry does not support these features out-of-the-box, but they can be enabled using open source third-party tools.
  7. OpenShift is mainly developed by Red Hat, while a number of tech leaders are working on Cloud Foundry, aiming at making it a de-facto industry standard.

Read full review

No photo available
Verified User
View all 13 answers on this topic

Return on Investment

  • It would be difficult to quantify the ROI exactly, but it virtually eliminates capital expenditures on hardware and at least halves the need for IT labor.

Read full review

No photo available
Verified User
View all 33 answers on this topic
  • Cost Saving (Used Open Source) version
  • Easy to implement and manage

Read full review

No photo available
Verified User
View all 13 answers on this topic

Pricing Details

Amazon Web Services

General
Free Trial
—
Free/Freemium Version
—
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
—
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details
—

OpenShift

General
Free Trial
—
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
—
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details
—