Apache Mesos vs. IBM Cloud Managed Istio

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Mesos
Score 2.6 out of 10
N/A
N/AN/A
IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Score 8.6 out of 10
N/A
The IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service provides the Managed Istio installation add on, designed to provide additonal control over clusters and the microservices they comprise via automatic updates and lifecycle management of control plane components, and integration with platform logging and monitoring tools.N/A
Pricing
Apache MesosIBM Cloud Managed Istio
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
MesosIBM Cloud Managed Istio
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Features
Apache MesosIBM Cloud Managed Istio
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
Apache Mesos
-
Ratings
IBM Cloud Managed Istio
7.9
5 Ratings
Ease of building user interfaces00 Ratings6.75 Ratings
Scalability00 Ratings7.85 Ratings
Platform management overhead00 Ratings7.55 Ratings
Workflow engine capability00 Ratings8.05 Ratings
Platform access control00 Ratings8.35 Ratings
Services-enabled integration00 Ratings7.95 Ratings
Development environment creation00 Ratings8.05 Ratings
Development environment replication00 Ratings8.05 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification00 Ratings8.25 Ratings
Issue recovery00 Ratings8.85 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes00 Ratings7.55 Ratings
User Ratings
Apache MesosIBM Cloud Managed Istio
Likelihood to Recommend
2.0
(2 ratings)
8.5
(5 ratings)
Support Rating
1.0
(2 ratings)
6.4
(2 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache MesosIBM Cloud Managed Istio
Likelihood to Recommend
Apache
There's really no reason to ever use Mesos. We switched over to Kubernetes and it's been a breath of fresh air - better CD support, easy CLI for browsing logs, no mysterious dangling redeploys. If you're looking for a tool to manage a fleet of Docker containers on VMs, Kubernetes beats Mesos by a wide margin.
Read full review
IBM
Clearly, the [IBM Cloud Managed Istio] tool is very useful when you have multiple services and each service is connecting with other services through APIs in different networks. To manage this type of complex network, [IBM Cloud Managed Istio] is very useful. It comes with a license that can increase the billing of your project so make sure if your application network mesh, monitoring cannot be managed on your own then you can use it. If your application is not very complex then you have many tools available like Grafana, Prometheus, Sumo Logic, which you can integrate individually with your cluster and implement. In this type of scenario, it is better to not use [IBM Cloud Managed Istio] and it will serve your purpose as well.
Read full review
Pros
Apache
  • Mesos may have many frameworks. If you have Mesos installed on your servers, you may use it for many kinds of tasks. Today we're running only web applications but the idea is to install a different framework for big data soon.
  • There is a good community growing around it.
Read full review
IBM
  • Layers transparently onto existing applications
  • Allows control of access and rules to be developed
  • Creates metrics for usage
Read full review
Cons
Apache
  • Unreliable deployments that would fail for no good reason. Sometimes our Docker container would be "restarting" forever because Mesos thought it didn't have enough resources to start the container.
  • Impossibly slow UI. Built in React under the hood with a lot of bloatware backed in, so loading the Mesos UI on a slow internet connection was painful.
  • No real logging solution - it would stream "console.log()" output to the UI, but searching for logs wasn't really possible without downloading a huge file.
  • No built-in support for redeploying containers from a CI. We had to create a service whose whole job was to expose an HTTP endpoint that restarted a container, and then made Circle CI ping the endpoint whenever we wanted to redeploy.
Read full review
IBM
  • Some more functionalities added could improve it better.
  • Better technical user guidance.
Read full review
Support Rating
Apache
No real support channel, the Mesos GitHub issues list was the only one we found and it wasn't particularly helpful.
Read full review
IBM
Training and usage support available
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Apache
Kubernetes is really great and their community is growing really fast (Google influence). We evaluated it in the beginning and it would fit for our web applications workload. We decided to proceed with Mesos because it has more potential. You may use a different framework for different kinds of tasks on Mesos. There is a Kubernetes framework for Mesos, by the way.
Read full review
IBM
Read full review
Return on Investment
Apache
  • It's optimizing our resources.
  • It's improving our process. This argument is not just for Mesos, but we needed a tool like this to start changing and it works like a charm.
  • It's open source.
Read full review
IBM
  • It reduced the complexity of network mesh (ingress/egress services).
  • One tool with many solutions. No need to integrate monitoring tools or notification tools.
  • It reduced the number of lines of YAML code.
  • It reduced the number of labor hours.
Read full review