IBM Cloud Object Storage is an IBM Cloud product in the endpoint backup and IaaS categories. It is commonly used for data archiving and backup, for web and mobile applications, and as scalable, persistent storage for analytics.
$0
per month
Kubernetes
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Kubernetes is an open-source container cluster manager.
N/A
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
N/A
OpenShift is Red Hat's Cloud Computing Platform as a Service (PaaS) offering. OpenShift is an application platform in the cloud where application developers and teams can build, test, deploy, and run their applications.
$0.08
per hour
Pricing
IBM Cloud Object Storage
Kubernetes
Red Hat OpenShift
Editions & Modules
One-Rate Plan
As low as USD $12/TB a month
per month
Standard Plan
Free up to 5GB—no minimum fee, pay only for what you use
per month
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
IBM Cloud Object Storage
Kubernetes
Red Hat OpenShift
Free Trial
No
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
Optional
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
The One-Rate and Standard service plans for Cloud Object Storage include resiliency options, flexible data classes and built-in security. Pricing is based on the choice of location, storage class and resiliency choice.
Mostly cost because most of them deliver a similar product and the decision for a hyperscaler (when you do not plan to use Multi Cloud) was not solely based on the object storage offering. Moreover, other components as K8s/postgres and the overall picture inclunding consulting …
Amazon S3 has a more complex pricing model. It charges as per the requests, which will be more costly for us compared to IBM cloud object storage. The safety of our data is the main focus, and this is guaranteed with IBM.
IBM Cloud Object Storage is a product that gives us greater scalability, and important security features such as WORM, in addition to Simplicity and Enhanced file access
I feel that both of these products have almost the same kind of work. Both are used for cloud based storage of unstructured data. IBM Cloud Storage Object Storage provides an upper hand as it is more effective.
I used OpenShift v2 - which was pre-Kubernetes. (It now uses Kubernetes under the hood - but keeps it fairly hidden). Kubernetes was a ton more stable and easier to use. No more custom CLI to use in order to script together deployments. No more messy ‘push your entire code …
It stacks well against OpenShift. The only downside for OpenShift is the multiple operators and the custom logic implemented in the product, plus the upgrades, which tend to be a bit longer due to the more complex implementation. Overall, these are similar products but with a …
Kubernetes cluster is cable to manage multiple nodes on on-premises or cloud infrastructure. In Kubernetes, we can easily add new nodes when ever required. We can easily update and rollback our application hosted on Kubernetes with the help of rolling and blue green deployment. …
Verified User
Administrator
Chose Kubernetes
I didn't have too much experience or exposure to OpenShift but I do remember that in certain areas our organization found Kubernetes to be more useful and met our needs in comparison to OpenShift. Although I can't compare, I think it's easier to customize Kubernetes because of …
Comparing the 2, open source Kubernetes is quicker to setup by about 75%, less restrictive, and free of course, but it lacks the security and support of Red Hat, and deploying features is much harder compared to with operators. For buisiness purposes, OpenShift is just more …
We looked at a few other options like plain Kubernetes and some managed services, but Red Hat OpenShift stood out because it’s enterprise-ready out of the box. The built-in security, automation tools, and support made a big difference.
We explore a lot of services to use in. But in todays world everything is cloud and the on premise solutions are not very strong until we discover Red Hat OpenShift which still very committed to maintain on premise solutions, we select Openshift and since first day we are very …
Red Hat OpenShift was the product that my team has been using since I've joined so it has been the only product in this area that I have used. With that being said, I have really no complaints and love implemented Red Hat OpenShift in my work to help be more efficient with my …
greate UI UX, easy to use, even when you have no clue about any command lines, you still can manage your apps. Also, public documentation is great, if you search for anything you can find it online. A great community and a support system
Red Hat OpenShift has a better security posture than EKS. I enjoy the console on Red Hat OpenShift more as well. I believe there is greater observability for Red Hat OpenShift.
RedHat OpenShift can run on-prem and on Azure, meaning we can get support from RedHat from two platforms, despite it being on those different platforms.
In my experience, IBM Cloud Object Storage is well suited for projects like the one I am working on. This includes the use of natural language classification and the uploading of data to train a machine learning model for tag suggestions based on a body of text. Using IBM Cloud Object Storage has helped with this greatly. IBM Cloud Object Storage has also been great for Big Data Analytics thanks to its scalablilty and ease of use for large datasets. Alongside IBM Watson and our team's internal big data tools we've managed to process and analyze data more efficiently, leading to key insights that have driven business value for our clients.
K8s should be avoided - If your application works well without being converted into microservices-based architecture & fits correctly in a VM, needs less scaling, have a fixed traffic pattern then it is better to keep away from Kubernetes. Otherwise, the operational challenges & technical expertise will add a lot to the OPEX. Also, if you're the one who thinks that containers consume fewer resources as compared to VMs then this is not true. As soon as you convert your application to a microservice-based architecture, a lot of components will add up, shooting your resource consumption even higher than VMs so, please beware. Kubernetes is a good choice - When the application needs quick scaling, is already in microservice-based architecture, has no fixed traffic pattern, most of the employees already have desired skills.
Red Hat OpenShift, despite its complexity and overhead, remains the most complete and enterprise-ready Kubernetes platform available. It excels in research projects like ours, where we need robust CI/CD, GPU scheduling, and tight integration with tools like Jupyter, OpenDataHub, and Quiskit. Its security, scalability, and operator ecosystem make it ideal for experimental and production-grade AI workloads. However, for simpler general hosting tasks—such as serving static websites or lightweight backend services—we find traditional VMs, Docker, or LXD more practical and resource-efficient. Red Hat OpenShift shines in complex, container-native workflows, but can be overkill for basic infrastructure needs.
IBM Cloud Object Storage is an excellent choice for disaster recovery and backup solutions. Its high durability and geographic redundancy ensure that our backup data is safe and can be quickly restored in case of a disaster. This capability is crucial for maintaining our business continuity and minimizing downtime. We have deployed our loads in an IKS cluster distributed in 3 different AZs with stateful data allocated in COS.
We have a video streaming application and need to store and deliver a vast library of video content to millions of users worldwide, so we store our data in COS, which is cheap and reliable.
We have a bunch of data that must be analyzed and stored in datasets for fraud detection, risk management, and customer insights. In these cases, this data is moved from Onprem to IBM Cloud so we can use cheap storage like COS.
We had a few microservices that dealt with notifications and alerts. We used OpenShift to deploy these microservices, which handle and deliver notifications using publish-subscribe models.
We had to expose an API to consumers via MTLS, which was implemented using Server secret integration in OpenShift. We were then able to deploy the APIs on OpenShift with API security.
We integrated Splunk with OpenShift to view the logs of our applications and gain real-time insights into usage, as well as provide high availability.
Searching and retrieving—full-text search or metadata search—is one of the significant areas of improvement. It isn't easy to search for data with this.
Integration with other IBM cloud services is trickier. For example, integrating this with API Connect to access the data from API will be difficult for users.
Support - I think you should have more support community.
Local development, Kubernetes does tend to be a bit complicated and unnecessary in environments where all development is done locally.
The need for add-ons, Helm is almost required when running Kubernetes. This brings a whole new tool to manage and learn before a developer can really start to use Kubernetes effectively.
Finicy configmap schemes. Kubernetes configmaps often have environment breaking hangups. The fail safes surrounding configmaps are sadly lacking.
I wouldn't necessarily say there is look everyday technology transform. I can see a trend wherein Red Hat OpenShift is adopting all the new technology trends and helping their customers align with their priorities and the emerging technology trends. I wouldn't call out various scope for development every day. There is scope for development. It is all how the organizations adopt it and how they deliver it to their customers. I don't want to call out there is scope for development. It's happening. It is a never ending process.
At the moment, I don't have anything to call out. We are experiencing Red Hat OpenShift and we can see every day they're coming up with new features as and when they come up with new features, we want to experience it more and more. We are looking for opportunities wherein this can be leveraged to help our users and partners.
The Kubernetes is going to be highly likely renewed as the technologies that will be placed on top of it are long term as of planning. There shouldn't be any last minute changes in the adoption and I do not anticipate sudden change of the core underlying technology. It is just that the slow process of technology adoption that makes it hard to switch to something else.
OpenShift is really easy of use through its management console. OpenShift gives a very large flexibility through many inbuilt functionalities, all gathered in the same place (it's a very convenient tool to learn DevOps technics hands on) OpenShift is an ideal integrated development / deployment platform for containers
For my use cases, it has been a very smooth experience. Even my new colleagues have been able to get on top of things very quickly. This shows how easy it is to work with
It is an eminently usable platform. However, its popularity is overshadowed by its complexity. To properly leverage the capabilities and possibilities of Kubernetes as a platform, you need to have excellent understanding of your use case, even better understanding of whether you even need Kubernetes, and if yes - be ready to invest in good engineering support for the platform itself
The virtualization part takes some getting used to it you are coming from a more traditional hypervisor. Customization options are not intuitive to these users. The process should be more clear. Perhaps a guide to Openshift Virtualization for users of RHV, VMware, etc. would ease this transition into the new platform
We rarely face downtime or access issues with IBM Cloud Object Storage. It’s mostly available when we need it, even during peak hours or heavy data loads.
Redhat openshift is generally reliable and available platform, it ensures high availability for most the situations. in fact the product where we put openshift in a box, we ensure that the availability is also happening at node and network level and also at storage level, so some of the factors that are outside of Openshift realm are also working in HA manner.
I would give it a 9 because it works smooth with our AI and analytics tools, no major slowdown. Pages and dashboards load fine most of the time, and reports finish in decent time even when data is heavy.
Overall, this platform is beneficial. The only downsides we have encountered have been with pods that occasionally hang. This results in resources being dedicated to dead or zombie pods. Over time, these wasted resources occasionally cause us issues, and we have had difficulty monitoring these pods. However, this issue does not overshadow the benefits we get from Openshift.
I have been working in IT sector for more than 15 years. I have worked with various vendors. IBM's sales team, support team have been really helpful. After we start to use their product, their UX design team also contacted us to get feedback from us. They are really interested about our experience.
Every time we need to get support all the Red Hat team move forward looking to solve the problem. Sometimes this was not easy and requires the scalation to product team, and we always get a response. Most of the minor issues were solved with the information from access.redhat.com
I was not involved in the in person training, so i can not answer this question, but the team in my org worked directly with Openshift and able to get the in person training done easily, i did not hear problem or complain in this space, so i hope things happen seamlessly without any issue.
I just researching and applying the tools on their platforms to ensure a good learning path, based on my needs. Reading the documentation related with resources, tools. Is too big, but I am trying to know more about it every day. It is a good way to know more about their resources. A new way to attract new customers. At the end of the day, we are all involved in improvement and automation of our tasks and resources for customers and end-users.
We went thru the training material on RH webesite, i think its very descriptive and the handson lab sesssions are very useful. It would be good to create more short duration videos covering one single aspect of openshift, this wll keep the interest and also it breaks down the complexity to reasonable chunks.
Yes Our organization used IBM professional services to implement IBM object storage because of its data consistency and multiple way to upload and download data and its encryption security features. Also that its brand matter for the any organization to secure the layer and storage. It sis also verify that application and system are compatibale for this product
Amazon S3 is a great service to safely back up your data where redundancy is guaranteed, and the cost is fair. In the past I have used Amazon S3 for data that we backup and hope we never need to access, but in the case of a catastrophic or even small slip of the finger with the delete command, we know our data and our client's data is safely backed up by Amazon S3. Amazon S3 service is a good option, but based on the features it provides compared with IBM Cloud Object Storage, it is less suitable. IBM Cloud Object Storage is also integrated with more services, like IBM Cloud SQL and IBM Aspera, which AWS does not provide to transfer files at maximum speed in the world.
Most of the required features for any orchestration tool or framework, which is provided by Kubernetes. After understanding all modules and features of the K8S, it is the best fit for us as compared with others out there.
The Tanzu Platform seemed overly complicated, and the frequent changes to the portfolio as well as the messaging made us uneasy. We also decided it would not be wise to tie our application platform to a specific infrastructure provider, as Tanzu cannot be deployed on anything other than vSphere. SUSE Rancher seemed good overall, but ultimately felt closer to a DIY approach versus the comprehensive package that Red Hat OpenShift provides.
It's easy to understand what are being billed and what's included in each type of subscription. Same with the support (Std or Premium) you know exactly what to expect when you need to use it. The "core" unit approach on the subscription made really simple to scale and carry the workloads from one site to another.
Scaling up the number of users can lead to significant increases in licensing costs, which, while not a technical limitation, can be a practical constraint for some organizations
This is a great platform to deployment container applications designed for multiple use cases. Its reasonably scalable platform, that can host multiple instances of applications, which can seamlessly handle the node and pod failure, if they are configured properly. There should be some scalability best practices guide would be very useful
This allows us to recommend a platform to our clients that will quickly help them create new, efficient business processes with very little development.
This saves clients hours and days of manual analysis of images, allowing the system to do the work when attaching Object Storage to models.
There is a learning curve in utilizing the storage and the modeling, but once up and running, it works well during deployment.
All of the above. Red Hat OpenShift going into a developer-type setting can be stood up very quickly. There's a very short period to have developers onboard to it and they're able to become productive much faster than a grow your own type solution.
