Kubernetes vs. SUSE Rancher

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Kubernetes
Score 9.3 out of 10
N/A
Kubernetes is an open-source container cluster manager.N/A
SUSE Rancher
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
Developed by Rancher Labs and now from SUSE, Rancher is open-source software that enables organizations to deploy and manage Kubernetes at scale, on any infrastructure across the data center, cloud, branch offices, and the network edge. Rancher centrally manages Kubernetes clusters across the organization in order to ensure security and accelerate transformation. Rancher is also available hosted. Hosted Rancher is a fully managed Rancher control plane - presented as the fastest, most cost…
$7,594.99
per year up to 500 nodes
Pricing
KubernetesSUSE Rancher
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Subscription license
7,594.99
per year up to 500 nodes
Standard Subscription
11,234.99
per year 10 nodes
Priority Subscription
30,514.99
per year 10 nodes
Management Server Priority Subscription
41,830.99
per year 1 instance
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
KubernetesSUSE Rancher
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
KubernetesSUSE Rancher
Considered Both Products
Kubernetes
Chose Kubernetes
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 …
Chose Kubernetes
Nomad is a simpler, more down-to-earth alternative to Kubernetes. In some sense, it is more similar to Amazon's ECS, but with more bells and whistles. For use cases not requiring the whole complexity of Kubernetes platform, Nomad can provide a much simpler and at the same time …
Chose Kubernetes
We evaluated Docker Swarm as usage of docker is very distributed in our company. But docker swarm has not as many features as kubernetes and we have large, complex architectures which require good scalability and robustness - this is a huge strength of kubernetes compared to …
Chose Kubernetes
Well, me and me team select Kubernetes for the natural solution and the easily assignation of resources to deploy a solution than could have multiple clients in the same infrastructure, so, for each one client we are running a set of different pods, and that's why we select …
Chose Kubernetes
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. …
Chose Kubernetes
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.
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 …
Chose Kubernetes
Kubernetes is very unique. I do not think there are any competitors to take over its leading place. And you can always use Kuberntes with other tools to make the whole system better. Kubernetes is backed up by Google and has been tested over the years. It is reliable, fast, and …
Chose Kubernetes
When planning our latest product we tried out many hosted container service and a few local tools. These included services run by Google, Microsoft, and Amazon and tools from companies like Docker and Apache. We ended up selecting Kubernetes because it was compatible with all …
Chose Kubernetes
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 …
Chose Kubernetes
Docker Swarm is not as advanced as Kubernetes and there are no out of the box solutions for auto scaling and deployment strategies. Docker swarm doesnot have much experience with production deployments at scale. Swarm has a smaller community, and less frequent releases as …
Chose Kubernetes
With AWS ECS, you have to provision the virtual hardware, then use that hardware as a pool for your container service. Each service has to be built out and scaled independently. Kubernetes allows us to use a cluster of machines like a big pool of resources, scaling and shipping …
Chose Kubernetes
Kubernetes is a great alternative to cloud hosted expensive solutions. It is extremely well documented and maintained. It is probably the best home-grown solution available for container infrastructure management.
Chose Kubernetes
We already had an enterprise Kubernetes 8 set up, so once we got our namespace it took me about 2 weeks to go from not knowing anything to having a self-contained jar in a container, running on Kubernetes 8. In comparison, it took me two weeks to install Java on a blank server …
Chose Kubernetes
As I said earlier also -
- K8s manage the workloads better as compared to OpenStack in terms of reliability, observability & reachability.
- K8s is not limited to only a single networking or storage solution as compared to OpenStack.
SUSE Rancher
Chose SUSE Rancher
SUSE Rancher is an excellent choice for managing multiple Kubernetes clusters, especially when catering to different teams with distinct access rights and requirements. It allows us to deploy these clusters on-premises across various sites or in the cloud. However, if you’re …
Chose SUSE Rancher
We started using SUSE Rancher in the early days and spent a large amount of time getting to know and love it. This was before the days of some of the likes of Amazon Web Services who may now provide a cheaper but less feature-rich alternative to SUSE Rancher, however we have …
Chose SUSE Rancher
That is the one of the greatest values of Rancher. You can choose to add new features and functionalities to your environment by implementing other projects from SUSE, but you not forced to. You can use Longhorn as Persistent Storage, but you can use any other i.e. VMware CSI, …
Chose SUSE Rancher
While Tanzu has a deeper integration in an existing VMWare cluster, we decided for SUSE Rancher because of a more open approach.
Chose SUSE Rancher
SUSE Rancher has the most complete Kubernetes GUI.
Chose SUSE Rancher
As we use only AWS EKS Clusters originally we were using the AWS Console and CLI but that is too limited in scope. Also, we were using AWS IAM roles to provide access to users but that was lots of extra work to have them integrated into SSO while on Rancher we have just …
Chose SUSE Rancher
I find SUSE Rancher easier to use and configure with the features I want to really use. I'm finding more people in the community to help in getting support for the product. The other competitors seem to lock you too much into their own ecosystems and keep many needed details …
Chose SUSE Rancher
SUSE Enterprise Storage, SUSE Manager and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server
Chose SUSE Rancher
lens installs locally and needs access (network) to the kube_api of the clusters. With Rancher, you need access to the rancher front end (UI / 443), and your clusters Kube API does not need to be exposed (even over a VPN or whitelisted ips). For security reasons, the rancher …
Chose SUSE Rancher
We were looking for an open-source solution for simply deploying and managing K8s on bare metal in both big and small environments. SUSE Rancher was the easiest to install. Rancher Kubernetes Engine (2) and K3s will give you just a plain simple Kubernetes environment. The …
Chose SUSE Rancher
SUSE Rancher has a great GUI, and seems to be a little bit mor open than the competitors.
Features
KubernetesSUSE Rancher
Container Management
Comparison of Container Management features of Product A and Product B
Kubernetes
8.4
Ratings
8% above category average
SUSE Rancher
7.5
Ratings
3% below category average
Security and Isolation8.50 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Container Orchestration9.50 Ratings8.70 Ratings
Cluster Management9.50 Ratings7.40 Ratings
Storage Management7.00 Ratings6.70 Ratings
Resource Allocation and Optimization7.50 Ratings7.60 Ratings
Discovery Tools8.50 Ratings6.50 Ratings
Update Rollouts and Rollbacks8.50 Ratings7.10 Ratings
Self-Healing and Recovery8.50 Ratings7.80 Ratings
Analytics, Monitoring, and Logging8.00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
KubernetesSUSE Rancher
Small Businesses
Portainer
Portainer
Score 9.6 out of 10
Portainer
Portainer
Score 9.6 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
KubernetesSUSE Rancher
Likelihood to Recommend
9.5
(0 ratings)
8.8
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.0
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
6.8
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
KubernetesSUSE Rancher
Likelihood to Recommend
Along with all the best features and support by k8s, the automatic container scheduling to worker nodes and also self-healing containers which is what I like the most. On the other side, when I was installing the k8s cluster on CentOS 8, it was quite difficult for me, but never mind it is working as we expected and it is a one-time effort. Especially, in my case, there are more than 7 application containers required to run and communicate with each other, so for us, Kubernetes is an optimal solution.
Read full review
SUSE Rancher as a management tool becomes useful on a larger scale. Small deployments not so much. If someone also requires Kubernetes capacity or storage, Rancher is an excellent choice. Also, without Kubernetes' skills, it is unlikely that Rancher deployment is going to be a success. Then again if someone else is managing your Kubernetes capacity, setting up the software's capacity will yield greater control. Rancher is not a very integrated solution similar to others in the market.
Read full review
Pros
  • Complex cluster management can be done with simple commands with strong authentication and authorization schemes
  • Exhaustive documentation and open community smoothens the learning process
  • As a user a few concepts like pod, deployment and service are sufficient to go a long way
Read full review
  • Public and private cloud infrastructure providers based on K8s CAPI
  • REST API that can be used to integrate company services with Rancher
  • GUI that is easy to learn and use in daily operations
  • Builtin GitOps automation solution based on Fleet project
  • It is fully open source
Read full review
Cons
  • 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.
Read full review
  • No possibility to snapshot Projects. You can snapshot and restore the whole Kubernetes cluster, but not a Project or Namespace. For this, you have to use external tools.
  • You cannot detach the Rancher-created Kubernetes clusters from Rancher management.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
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.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
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
Read full review
Overall it deserves an 8 out of 10. The platform is very easy to use as long as the UI is stable. We have had a few buggy versions in the past. However the CLI is excellent and the platform is simple to manage and maintain. It is easy to deploy and offer for company wide use which increases utilization and ROI.
Read full review
Support Rating
No answers on this topic
The documentation is quite complete and there is a very active community that is willing to collaborate and answer questions for those who are just starting out.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
As I said earlier also - - K8s manage the workloads better as compared to OpenStack in terms of reliability, observability & reachability. - K8s is not limited to only a single networking or storage solution as compared to OpenStack. - Networking (which is a key concept) is much simpler in K8s as compared to OpenStack. - It is possible to upgrade your applications without downtime in K8s but in OpenStack, you either have to divert the traffic or face an outage because you have to delete the whole stack & then recreate it.
Read full review
SUSE Rancher is an excellent choice for managing multiple Kubernetes clusters, especially when catering to different teams with distinct access rights and requirements. It allows us to deploy these clusters on-premises across various sites or in the cloud. However, if you’re dealing with only one or a few Kubernetes clusters, using SUSE Rancher might introduce unnecessary complexity. This is where EKS wins, as its native cloud based abilities are better suited to scale, support higher complexity and larger demand.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Because of microservices, Kubernetes makes it easy to find the cost of each application easily.
  • Like every new technology, initially, it took more resources to educate ourselves but over a period of time, I believe it's going to be worth it.
Read full review
  • Shortens "Time-to-Market" factor for new business applications or implementing new functionalities. From 1 to 50 microservices-based business applications in 6 years.
  • 24/7 availability, generates more money. There are many infrastructure components that are regularly powered-off for maintenance or upgrade, bur we rarely are turning off our downstream Kubernetes clusters where our business applications lives.
  • Single Point of Contact with platform maintenance and development Team, eases implementation of new business applications
Read full review
ScreenShots