CloudFoundry vs. Platform.sh

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
CloudFoundry
Score 9.9 out of 10
N/A
CloudFoundry is a free, open source cloud computing platform supported by the non-profit CloudFoundry. It is not tied to any particular cloud service, but can be self-hosted or run on any cloud service preferred.N/A
Platform.sh
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
Platform.sh helps companies of all sizes, from SaaS entrepreneurs looking to build, run, and scale their websites and web applications.N/A
Pricing
CloudFoundryPlatform.sh
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
CloudFoundryPlatform.sh
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
YesNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
CloudFoundryPlatform.sh
Top Pros

No answers on this topic

Top Cons

No answers on this topic

Features
CloudFoundryPlatform.sh
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
CloudFoundry
9.8
1 Ratings
20% above category average
Platform.sh
9.3
1 Ratings
15% above category average
Ease of building user interfaces10.01 Ratings00 Ratings
Scalability9.01 Ratings9.01 Ratings
Development environment creation10.01 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Development environment replication10.01 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Issue recovery10.01 Ratings00 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes10.01 Ratings9.01 Ratings
Services-enabled integration00 Ratings9.01 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification00 Ratings9.01 Ratings
Best Alternatives
CloudFoundryPlatform.sh
Small Businesses
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
Score 8.9 out of 10
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
Score 8.9 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
Enterprises
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
CloudFoundryPlatform.sh
Likelihood to Recommend
10.0
(1 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
CloudFoundryPlatform.sh
Likelihood to Recommend
CloudFoundry
It's well suited if:
  • The organization has large number of applications that needs to be deployed frequently.
  • The organization is tied to the DevOps mindset.
  • The organization has programs in different languages.
  • The applications does not need EJB's support that servers like web logic provide.
It's less suited if:
  • The applications needs security configuration within the same CloudFoundry instance.
  • The organization, for whatever reason does not want developers to manage the instances.
Read full review
Platform.sh
In our organisation we are the only team that uses Platform.sh to host any site. This was a cost effective way for us as we were using Acquia Cloud earlier for these websites. We mostly use Platform.sh for those sites which are always in development as it is simpler and faster to handle these operations in Platform.sh. Then we do a lift and shift to Acquia as we move more towards the go live and post production maintenance side.
Read full review
Pros
CloudFoundry
  • Support for Orgs and Spaces that allow for managing users and deployables within a large organization.
  • Easy deployment, deploying code is as simple as executing single line from CLI, thanks to build-packs.
  • Solid and rich CLI, that allows for various operations on the instance.
  • Isolated Virtual Machines called Droplets, that provide clean run time environment for the code. This used to be a problem with Weblogic and other application servers, where multiple applications are run on the same cluster and they share resources.
  • SSH capability for the droplet (isolated VM's are called droplets), that allows for real time viewing of the App code while the application is running.
  • Support for multiple languages, thanks to build-packs.
  • Support for horizontal scaling, scaling an instance horizontally is a breeze.
  • Support for configuring environment variable using the service bindings.
  • Supports memory and disk space limit allocation for individual applications.
  • Supports API's as well as workers (processes without endpoints)
  • Supports blue-green deployment with minimal down time
Read full review
Platform.sh
  • As this is a PaaS it mitigates the complexities of a Cloud infrastructure like Acquia
  • We are easily able to integrate our sites with different technologies like Python and Rest
  • Helps us in providing Continuous Development cloud deployment hosting solution
Read full review
Cons
CloudFoundry
  • Does not support stateful containers and that would be a nice to have.
  • Supports showing logs, but does not persist the logs anywhere. This makes relying on Cloud Foundry's logs very unreliable. The logs have to be persisted using other third party tools like Elk and Kibana.
Read full review
Platform.sh
  • Platform.sh is not for beginners in my opinion. It has a good amount of learning curve in my opinion.
  • As this is a PaaS, teams habituated with cloud infrastructure may miss the server side support from their cloud teams. I believe you will have to work on server bugs more on your own.
  • During normal maintenance periods, integrations may fail if you are working on your sites in that time, in my experience.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
CloudFoundry
While Docker shines in providing support for volumes and stateful instances, Cloud foundry shines in providing support for deploying stateless services. Heroku shines in integrating with Git and using commits to git as hooks to trigger deployments right from the command line. But it does not provide on-premise solution that Cloud foundry provides.
Read full review
Platform.sh
In our team we use Platform.sh mostly while sites are in developmental phase. Then we do a lift and shift to either Acquia or AWS depending on the type of sites we have. Platform.sh is really cost effective and more fluid in terms of Continuous Development hence the usage. After said development is done, we generally lift and shift to Acquia for more content heavy sites and to AWS for more transaction oriented sites.
Read full review
Return on Investment
CloudFoundry
  • Positive impact, since it simplifies the deployment time by a huge margin. Without cloud foundry, deploying a code needs coordination with infrastructure teams, while with cloud foundry, its a simple one line command. This reduces the deployment time from at least few hours to few minutes. Faster deployments promote faster dev cycle iterations.
  • Code maintenance such as upgrading a Node or Java version is as simple as updating the build-pack. Without cloud foundry, using web logic, the specific version only supports a specific version of Java. So updating the version involves upgrading the version of web logic that needs to involve few teams. So without cloud foundry, it takes at least few days, with cloud foundry, its a matter of few mins.
  • Overall, happier Developers and thats harder to quantify.
Read full review
Platform.sh
  • Continuous development for sites in build has been fluid
  • Platform.sh is really cost effective when comparing to AWS or Acquia Cloud
  • On the other side, lack of server side support demands a big learning curve from its users in my opinion.
Read full review
ScreenShots

Platform.sh Screenshots

Screenshot of