Microsoft Azure vs. Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Microsoft Azure
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft Azure is a cloud computing platform and infrastructure for building, deploying, and managing applications and services through a global network of Microsoft-managed datacenters.
$29
per month
Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is a comprehensive service that offers fully managed OpenShift clusters, on IBM Cloud platform. It is directly integrated into the same Kubernetes service that maintains 25 billion on-demand forecasts daily at The Weather Company.N/A
Pricing
Microsoft AzureRed Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Editions & Modules
Developer
$29
per month
Standard
$100
per month
Professional Direct
$1000
per month
Basic
Free
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Microsoft AzureRed Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Free Trial
YesYes
Free/Freemium Version
YesNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsThe free tier lets users have access to a variety of services free for 12 months with limited usage after making an Azure account.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Microsoft AzureRed Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Considered Both Products
Microsoft Azure
Chose Microsoft Azure
Obviously this is just based on the virtualisation part of the product, but VM's in Microsoft Azure are well managable and no need to invest in hardware, which gives it an edge in a time where the need for VM's is getting less and less.
Chose Microsoft Azure
I feel that Microsoft Azure typically outperforms Google Cloud Platform in hybrid cloud capabilities, integration aspects, and, primarily, security compliance features. Azure offered superior integration with Microsoft's enterprise software ecosystem, and it's second to none in …
Chose Microsoft Azure
Mostly due to the ecosystem. I don't think there is anything in AWS that we would be missing out when using Microsoft Azure. We use Microsoft products on on-premise servers and also M365 / Office services that are well supported in Microsoft Azure. The pricing between AWS and …
Chose Microsoft Azure
AWS is good for linux virtual machines and mac virtual machines, Microsoft Azure doesn't do mac VMs. However, in my opinion Microsoft Azure is better in every other aspect, easier to use and just as cost effective.
Chose Microsoft Azure
AWS takes the cake here just due to how simple it is to configure IAM roles, users, and policies. Microsoft Azure is nearly neck-and-neck and could probably overtake them in the near future. Splunk for logging isn't that great and Microsoft Azure does a solid job but they could …
Chose Microsoft Azure
Microsoft Azure is a comprehensive platform that offers almost all functionalities and can provide even more. Due to ongoing extensive developments, additional functionalities are continuously being added and improved. Many new functionalities are also being added that are …
Chose Microsoft Azure
While Azure is a solid and robust platform, VMWare is a much better product with greater usability and features.
Chose Microsoft Azure
Azure works well with the items selected above - ex. Barracuda for backups. Integration is simple and functions.
Chose Microsoft Azure
Azure is more user friendly and provides much required scalability and flexibility.
Chose Microsoft Azure
AWS is the most stable cloud options but Azure has done well in last few years and provides good options specifically for Microsoft customers and who are more familiar with Microsoft technologies like WINDOWS, MS SQL SERVER, GITHUB, VISUAL STUDIO etc. Google cloud is more …
Chose Microsoft Azure
Azure is an ideal platform for disaster recovery and backup. It is very flexible because of its site regeneration capabilities and other features. All of our data can be backup, regardless of the language or operating system. Azure’s inherent flexibility comes from its status …
Chose Microsoft Azure
Remote accessibility for the mass people from the different places where both free and premium service is available that's why people choose Microsoft Azure. The main reason of switching from that to Microsoft Azure is the cost of operation and operating flexibility. The …
Chose Microsoft Azure
AWS and Azure are distinct classes, regardless of how we view them or which sub-areas. Their capabilities are the most comprehensive and sophisticated. Azure will benefit existing Microsoft customers, but AWS has a slight market share advantage. Microsoft Azure offers many …
Chose Microsoft Azure
Veeam Backup for Google Cloud Platform
Chose Microsoft Azure
Ease of use. Multiple Data centers across the globe. Load management. Backup and recovery options.
Chose Microsoft Azure
Because Microsoft Azure has more integrations and possibilities. Also most of the biggest companies are using it, so it gives the security and the back up to trust and work with confidence.
Chose Microsoft Azure
As I continue to evaluate the "big three" cloud providers for our clients, I make the following distinctions, though this gap continues to close. AWS is more granular, and inherently powerful in the configuration options compared to [Microsoft] Azure. It is a "developer" …
Chose Microsoft Azure
We actually utilized multiple cloud stacks, depending upon the customer environment and need. Those that heavily used MS products (Office on-prem or 365), Teams, etc, found it a better fit, with easier integration, for their needs.
Chose Microsoft Azure
I would say that Azure stacks up pretty good and sometimes better in comparison to what Google Cloud Platform has to offer. I don't like GCP for its absurd licensing fees and it's expensive for just Using EC2 Instances. However, DigitalOcean and AWS can offer far better …
Chose Microsoft Azure
The most common alternatives are Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud Platform. AWS is known for its non-existent customer support and abysmal documentation - Azure is clearly better on both fronts. Google Cloud Platform is a solid product, but in my experience Azure Functions …
Chose Microsoft Azure
Integration with other Microsoft products makes Azure stand out quite a bit. However, if you need to use open source software and to integrate with Linux systems then AWS or Google Cloud might be better alternatives. Google did not even come close to Azure in terms of …
Chose Microsoft Azure
Evaluated both AWS and GCP for a similar set of use cases to realize that AWS required additional third-party add ons to be purchased for load balancing vs. Azure's out-of-the-box capabilities offered for free. GCP on the surface was lower cost but the cost of running …
Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Chose Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
1. The pricing is better than the other competitors. 2. We are already using other services being offered by IBM, so it makes better sense to utilize the IBM cloud red hat open shift. 3. Support is also valuable. 4. security is good. 5. constant updates on clusters. 6. cloud …
Chose Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Both have unique benefits for different uses. Docker is great for smaller projects on a single host or small cluster, whereas OpenShift is ideal when you need a scalable, fully managed, and secure Kubernetes platform. OpenShift also offers a more fully featured web-based …
Chose Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is best when it comes to security capabilities and hybrid scenarios. With Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud we could provision new environments very quickly and in cost effective way. Customers could also use the cloud credits that they might have …
Chose Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is a container application platform based on Kubernetes, that leverages our ability to start very quickly any containerized application developed with different languages, plus CI/CD, monitoring and logging and security.
Chose Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
I prefer RedHat OpenShift because with kubernetes there are tons more installations and work effort required to get applications ready to run in the containerized environment. RedHat OpenShift is faster and easier to get up and running.
Chose Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Planning to do so late. The evaluation for more vendors is in the cooking, pending budget approval & assignment to the right top guns. With the recession looming, I do wish that this key project could get approved & more discoveries could be made soon as I wished before.
Chose Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
We evaluated a number of potential solutions and ultimately chose Red Hat OpenShift because it was compatible with our existing technology. Time and costs savings have been realized throughout the company since we implemented Red Hat OpenShift, and the IT department has been …
Chose Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
We are using IBM Cloud App ID as a simple method to get an OIDC provider for our applications, that are running within the OpenShift cluster. Also, IBM Cloud Object Storage is used within the workload to store data via an s3 compliant way. The IBM Cloud Container Registry is an …
Chose Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Red hat Openshift had a better user interface by far. Amazon EKS's was so basic it was essentially useless. We had to use a separate tool called lens to get basic stuff done. Lens was buggy and didn't work as well though, even for basic functionality like updating a K8s secret.
Chose Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
For our particular use case, Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud was very cost-competitive. We already had RHEL, OpenShift, and Ansible skills that translated to the service. From a feature and function perspective, most solutions have a parity but being open source and less chance …
Chose Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
For one of our banking clients, I have explored and played around the Kubernetes platform on IBM Cloud. In the process to deploy the application, I had to create the deployment artifacts, which was quite cumbersome. But then for one of the automotive clients I was asked to …
Chose Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
We tested Red Hat OpenShift on premise but we decided to go for a public cloud to reduce our infrastructure and pay for what we use.
Features
Microsoft AzureRed Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)
Comparison of Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) features of Product A and Product B
Microsoft Azure
8.5
Ratings
6% above category average
Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
-
Ratings
Service-level Agreement (SLA) uptime9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Dynamic scaling8.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Elastic load balancing9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Pre-configured templates8.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Monitoring tools8.40 Ratings00 Ratings
Pre-defined machine images8.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Operating system support8.90 Ratings00 Ratings
Security controls9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Automation8.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Container Management
Comparison of Container Management features of Product A and Product B
Microsoft Azure
-
Ratings
Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
7.5
Ratings
3% below category average
Security and Isolation00 Ratings8.80 Ratings
Container Orchestration00 Ratings8.30 Ratings
Cluster Management00 Ratings7.30 Ratings
Storage Management00 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Resource Allocation and Optimization00 Ratings7.40 Ratings
Discovery Tools00 Ratings6.90 Ratings
Update Rollouts and Rollbacks00 Ratings7.50 Ratings
Self-Healing and Recovery00 Ratings7.60 Ratings
Analytics, Monitoring, and Logging00 Ratings6.90 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Microsoft AzureRed Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Small Businesses
DigitalOcean Droplets
DigitalOcean Droplets
Score 8.7 out of 10
Portainer
Portainer
Score 9.6 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
SAP on IBM Cloud
SAP on IBM Cloud
Score 9.5 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Enterprises
SAP on IBM Cloud
SAP on IBM Cloud
Score 9.5 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Microsoft AzureRed Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Likelihood to Recommend
8.9
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
10.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
9.4
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Availability
6.8
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.0
(0 ratings)
7.0
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
8.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Microsoft AzureRed Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud
Likelihood to Recommend
Actually, migrating to Microsoft Azure is a good solution for almost any situation, especially when all components of your network are ready to become cloud-based. The only drawback I personally encounter frequently is that older software packages cannot always be easily picked up and moved to Microsoft Azure in an optimal manner.
Read full review
RedHat OpenShift is not only suited for IBM Cloud but can run in ANY cloud. We installed in Azure Cloud, for example. It can also run on Linux servers or a Power 9 machine. It is built for multi-cloud or on-prem environments. IBM support provides such excellent guidance in the installation and configuration that no other product on the market can beat it.
Read full review
Pros
  • Azure simply provides end to end life cycle. Starting from the development to automated deployment, you will find [a] bunch of options. Custom hook-points allow [integration] on-premise resources as well.
  • Excellent documentation around all the services make it really easy for any novice. Overall support by [the] community and Azure Technical team is exceptional.
  • BOT Services, Computer Vision services, ML frameworks provide excellent results as compare to similar services provided by other giants in the same space.
  • Azure data services provide excellent support to ingest data from different sources, ETL, and consumption of data for BI purpose.
Read full review
  • Multiclick provisioning of resources makes it super easy to manage pods and deployments. We don't have to maintain code for the same
  • In built security features and customizability ensures that organization wide standards are integrated well into the containers
  • Automated backups, scale ups and fail recovery makes sure of minimal down time
Read full review
Cons
  • In our experience, Azure Kubernetes Survice was difficult to set up, which is why we used Kubernetes on top of VMs.
  • Azure REST API is a bit difficult to use, which made it difficult for us to automate our interactions with Azure.
  • Azure's Web UI does a good job of showing metrics on individual VMs, but it would be great if there was a way to show certain metrics from multiple VMs on one dashboard. For example, hard drive usage on our database VMs.
Read full review
  • I wish it had better compatibility with docker file syntax. We had issues when it couldn't build standard docker files
  • Wish it had better documentation
  • Wish they offered fully supported client libraries for the Openshift API rather than dumping it on a 3rd party
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
We have been very satisfied with Windows Azure and now a lot of our business depends on it as more teams are now deploying their applications into Azure. Our next step is to have our Infrastructure team move their resources to Azure. It will take awhile for that to happen but we are positive that it will.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
Microsoft Azure's overall usability has been better than expected. Often times vendors promise the world, only to leave you with a run-down town. Not the case with our experience. From an implementation perspective, all went perfect, and from the user-facing experience we have had no technical issues, just some learning curve issues that are more about "why" than "how"
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Reliability and Availability
It has proven to be unreliable in our production environment and services become unavailable without proper notification to system administrators
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
Support is easy with all the knowledge base articles available for free on the web. Plus, if you have a preferred status you can leverage their concierge support to get rapid response. Sometimes they’ll bounce you around a lot to get you to the right person, but they are quite responsive (especially when you are paying for the service). Many of the older Microsoft skills are also transferable from old-school on-prem to Azure-based virtual interfaces.
Read full review
I think response time for IBM Cloud support should be improved.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
As I have mentioned before the issue with my Oracle Mismatch Version issues that have put a delay on moving one of my platforms will justify my 7 rating.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
I feel that Microsoft Azure typically outperforms Google Cloud Platform in hybrid cloud capabilities, integration aspects, and, primarily, security compliance features. Azure offered superior integration with Microsoft's enterprise software ecosystem, and it's second to none in my opinion. This made it the natural choice for most, especially if heavily invested in Windows, Office 365, or Active Directory deployments. We chose Azure over GCP because we simply needed Windows workload support as a strong driver, more access to global regions, and let's not forget that most tech teams in an organization are Microsoft Certified, which makes skillset transfer from on-prem to cloud a minimal learning curve over shifting to a different provider.
Read full review
We evaluated a number of potential solutions and ultimately chose Red Hat OpenShift because it was compatible with our existing technology. Time and costs savings have been realized throughout the company since we implemented Red Hat OpenShift, and the IT department has been freed up to focus on activities that are more valuable.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Times and growth went into it. By balancing on-premises maintenance with continuous cloud improvements, we’ve budgeted and planned endlessly increased capacity.
  • In today’s world of cyber-crime, clients can put even more faith in what they’ve heard. We built an innovative single-sign-on hub for all users. Also, other business platforms use Azure application gateways, reducing worker switching time and increasing productivity.
  • Its step can automate to improve the investment. In addition, we can integrate our organization’s credentials into an authorization for other systems.
Read full review
  • Our customer satisfaction and NPS score has had positive outcomes based on new architecture
  • We are focused on business outcomes vs running the service and maintenance
  • OpenShift on IBM Cloud has had a direct, positive impact on TCO, ROI, and payback period
  • Our staff is more focused on higher-level business activities, i.e. acquiring & customer retention
Read full review
ScreenShots