IBM Cloud Managed Istio vs. Platform.sh

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Score 8.7 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
Platform.sh
Score 8.1 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
IBM Cloud Managed IstioPlatform.sh
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
IBM Cloud Managed IstioPlatform.sh
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
IBM Cloud Managed IstioPlatform.sh
Considered Both Products
IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Chose IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Amazon API Gateway and MuleSoft Anypoint Platform
Chose IBM Cloud Managed Istio
[IBM Cloud Managed] Istio is cost-effective compared overall with and provides better Kubernetes environments.
Chose IBM Cloud Managed Istio
1) One-stop solution for all the complex network connectivity managed by [IBM Cloud Managed Istio].
2) Nice dashboard to understand the flow.
3) Easy to troubleshoot the service if any one of the APIs is not responding.
Chose IBM Cloud Managed Istio
The ease of use and the scalability have been major factors in the decision making. We like that there is not a lot of repetitive work that must be done in order to bring in existing concepts and ideas into different work streams that have similar but not the same challenges. …
Chose IBM Cloud Managed Istio
It's a cost effective solution for my organization.
Platform.sh
Chose 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. …
Features
IBM Cloud Managed IstioPlatform.sh
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
IBM Cloud Managed Istio
8.0
Ratings
0% above category average
Platform.sh
9.3
Ratings
15% above category average
Ease of building user interfaces6.90 Ratings00 Ratings
Scalability7.90 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Platform management overhead7.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Workflow engine capability8.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform access control8.70 Ratings00 Ratings
Services-enabled integration8.60 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Development environment creation8.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Development environment replication8.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification8.00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Issue recovery8.90 Ratings00 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes7.20 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
IBM Cloud Managed IstioPlatform.sh
Small Businesses
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.7 out of 10
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Enterprises
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
IBM Cloud Managed IstioPlatform.sh
Likelihood to Recommend
8.7
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
6.4
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
IBM Cloud Managed IstioPlatform.sh
Likelihood to Recommend
It is a perfect application when you have multiple users and/or developers and you want to create rules and standards for access and the ability to change access levels. The reporting of usage is good, but adding more granularity into the metrics that have been used to measure are not specific enough. They provide detail but drilling into the detail would be more appropriate i.e. access to the baseline data.
Read full review
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
  • Debug issues
  • Monitoring
  • allows many services form many different sources
Read full review
  • 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
  • Still missing functionalities for a full usage as traffic director.
Read full review
  • 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
Support Rating
Training and usage support available
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
1) One-stop solution for all the complex network connectivity managed by [IBM Cloud Managed Istio]. 2) Nice dashboard to understand the flow. 3) Easy to troubleshoot the service if any one of the APIs is not responding. 4) We can integrate it with Azure Kubernetes service and other cloud provider Kubernetes services. 5) Monitoring the health of the pods can be easily configured and alerts can be triggered very accurately with this tool.
Read full review
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
  • Management burden is reduced resulting in positive ROI.
  • Application is being seamlessly instrumented with good impact on business.
Read full review
  • 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