The Mirantis Kubernetes Engine (formerly Docker Enterprise, acquired by Mirantis in November 2019)aims to let users ship code faster. Mirantis Kubernetes Engine gives users one set of APIs and tools to deploy, manage, and observe secure-by-default, certified, batteries-included Kubernetes clusters on any infrastructure: public cloud, private cloud, or bare metal.
$0
per year
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 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.
N/A
Pricing
Mirantis Kubernetes Engine
Red Hat OpenShift
Editions & Modules
Free
$0.00
per year
Basic
$500.00
per year
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Mirantis Kubernetes Engine
Red Hat OpenShift
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
These pricing options are compatible with Linux or Windows Server and are per year, per node. The basic version requires maximum online purchase not to exceed 50 nodes. Support/professional services are not included.
I didn’t select Mirantis Cloud Native Suite (Docker Enterprise) when I joined this organisation it was already being used here. The one thing I can say about Mirantis Cloud Native Suite (Docker Enterprise) is easy to use and creates a good impact in the businesses. So, I …
So far I haven't used any other containerized product except Docker Enterprise because in terms of community support and tutorial videos, Docker has a better reach than other tools. Docker can be easily set up from local to the cloud without worrying about the flavor of OS …
I have not used any other software as a container management solution. Its containerized apps allow the usage of less memory, thus
they start and shut down very fast. This tool is helping the enterprise
software to work quickly against the changing conditions thus offers great
I have heard about others, but all my professional life I have been using Docker as my primary container and the thing is you just don't need anything else right now. Because Kubernetes supports Docker and Docker is open-source and just very simple to get started with. 10 …
I have used Vagrant for consistent development environments as well. It is a more "heavyweight" solution since it's a complete virtual machine that requires a host like VirtualBox in order to run. With Docker, the container is much more lightweight and just requires the docker …
Junior Systems Administrator | POS Programming Specialist
Chose Mirantis Kubernetes Engine
FreeNAS, I don't wish to bad mouth any product but it appeared that iXsystems just did not want to help their users or attempt to resolve issues. It looks good on paper and it worked well for me for about 4 years until I needed more support and a more complex and bigger …
Docker has become the defacto service, as far as I have seen, to run Linux or other tools on any OS and architecture and get the same output. I have used vagrant in the past, but it was much more complicated to use. Docker is very common among developers, so documentation and …
Dockers isn't a replacement for VMWare or VirtualBox in all cases. It's fundamentally a different way to solve the development problem. We use Docker when we need a lightweight, fast development scaffold. We use other virtualization solutions if we need GUI access or need a …
I would also compare to BSD Jails, LXC, and Solaris Zones, but they weren't listed. One of the first reasons we decided to use Docker over other container applications is because Docker is the default everyone recommends and is easily the most popular. We found Docker to be …
Docker provides less lock in and more portability than Heroku. You can also easily self host or choose a Docker hosting service. Additionally, there is a wide availability of Docker containers where Heroku build packs are somewhat more limited. Heroku offers a more turnkey …
We've used XAMPP, PHPmyAdmin and similar local environments (our app is on PHP).
Because of how easy you can change the configuration of libraries on PHP and versions (which is SO painful on XAMPP or other friendly LAMP local servers) we are using Docker right now. Also, being …
Prior to docker, we had a custom build and deployment system. For local development, we use VirtualBox to host our VMs, while our custom VMs resided directly on the servers. We chose Docker primarily to allow us to get rid of our custom deployment system, both simplifying build …
Docker is great because of how the Docker Runtime works and how it eliminates the need to have the full operating system overhead that you'd find in a virtual machine (VM), keeping things lightweight and compatible regardless of where you go. Having an isolated, full Linux …
For light weight frontends, the Docker Swarm is the easiest to manage. One person can then mange the production environment and at the same time develop new software.
While Ansible and Docker focus on solving two different problems, we were previously using Ansible to ensure that all dependencies were automatically setup on new servers and that proper configuration was applied when new nodes were brought up. With docker, most of these …
While we still use virtual machines [for our Docker servers], we prefer Docker containers for our deployments. It really allows for a simpler infrastructure footprint to manage. For example, instead of managing 30 virtual machines with one or two apps on each VM, we could …
I had to use virtual machines before, the last one was VirtualBox. I was only a user there, I wasn't responsible for the configuration, it was a black box for me. When I had to use Docker for the first time I was a skeptic, but it proved to be easy. I can't really compare the …
Doocker lacks a lot of the scaling, automation, integration of 3rd party tools/solutions, and integration of shared high-performance self-healing storage, solutions like Heketi provide those missing pieces.
Docker runs both locally and on the server, whereas VirtualBox is only used locally to create a development environment. Docker gives us the ability to have the exact same environment both in the cloud and on individual developers' laptops. There are no surprises for the team, …
Vagrant is another software that offers similar [features that] stack to Docker. It offers an isolated container similar to Docker but Docker is lighter weight because it does not have the additional overhead of a VM Container. Docker has a much larger community of developers …
Docker is a different beast in that it is not trying to solve all of your infrastructure problems or most of them, it is simply trying to provide a reliable container serviced based on linux containers in which you can easily and quickly deploy microservices. LXD does provide …
Docker doesn't directly compare to very many other services. It is unique in its field. However, I love how fast Docker services spin up in comparison to VM-based or server-based applications. Docker is being adopted at a fast rate in the industry, so it's great to see Docker …
Before Docker, we were using Chef to manage our deployments. Chef didn't provide the environmental consistency and release confidence we needed. We had a split process between how the build servers, the developers and the deployed environments were managing the software …
Nothing like OpenShift. Actually, this was our first one. We toyed with maybe doing raw Kubernetes, but with an enterprise company you need an enterprise product.
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 …
Even though Red Hat OpenShift has more overhead than many other Kubernetes flavors, we have selected Red Hat OpenShift because of it's focus on Security and because of it's excellent vendor support.
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.
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 …
Docker is great for when you would want to use a VM for any given application, but don't need the overhead of the whole OS. Docker containers use very little computing resources, boot up very quickly, and are very easy to set up. An instance where Docker may not be appropriate would be for an application that requires good security. If in this situation, a true VM would probably be your best bet.
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.
One thing is the way how it works with the GitHubs model on an enterprise business, how the hub and spoke topology works. Hub cluster topology works the way how there is a governance model to enforce policies. The R back models, the Red Hat OpenShift virtualization that supports the cube board and developer workspace is one big feature within. So yes, these are all some features I would call out.
Docker has a bit of a learning curve, and it takes some time to become familiar with the tooling and syntax. Transitioning an existing architecture to docker can represent a significant investment.
Docker attempts to provide some level of cross-host container orchestration via swarm, but it falls short of third-party solutions like kubernetes.
We occasionally run into stability issues when the docker daemon is subjected to high load (many applications starting/stopping frequently). In these cases, docker hangs and we have to restart or replace the node.
So I don't know that this is a specific disadvantage for Red Hat OpenShift. It's a challenge for anything that Kubernetes face is. There's an extremely large learning curve associated with it and once you get to the point where you're comfortable with it, it's really not bad. But beating that learning curve is a challenge. I've done a couple presentations on our implementation of Red Hat OpenShift at various conferences and one of the slides I always have in there is a tweet from years ago that said, "I tried to teach somebody Kubernetes once. Now neither of us knows what it is."
This is the current strategy for the company, most of the products in the organisation are aligning to Openshift and various use cases it support. Also lot of applications are being developed for AI use case, openshift.AI provides opportunity to host and leverage the AI capabilities for these applications
Docker's CLI has a lot of options, and they aren't all intuitive. And there are so many tools in the space (Docker Compose, Docker Swarm, etc) that have their own configuration as well. So while there is a lot to learn, most concepts transfer easily and can be learned once and applied across everything.
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
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.
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.
The community support for Docker is fantastic. There is almost always an answer for any issue I might encounter day-to-day, either on Stack Overflow, a helpful blog post, or the community Slack workspace. I've never come across a problem that I was unable to solve via some searching around in the community.
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.
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.
I have not used any other software as a container management solution. Its containerized apps allow the usage of less memory, thus they start and shut down very fast. This tool is helping the enterprise software to work quickly against the changing conditions thus offers great scaling by simultaneously allowing me to meet the demands, which also leads to easy implementation of the strategies.
We utilized the Thycotic Secret Service to manage all our application secrets, resulting in seamless integration with our applications. We developed all the applications using Red Hat Fuse (currently migrated to Quarkus). We used the built-in Kali Linux support of OpenShift to manage and configure the services and API. Additionally, the Red Hat Developer Studio facilitates faster development.
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
We are able to try things very quickly compared to before. If you need to debug it, changes on X/Y/Z will have an impact on the way your app works, and changing libraries or configurations of the environment easily can improve your development cycles.
In case someone new arrives, the onboarding is pretty easy thanks to Docker. We have tried many configs and images until we reached a point were we have what we want. We don't have to painfully do that again for every new user. We just send him the image.
It has allowed us to see where we need to be in the container world. I'm going to call it a net neutral impact, not negative or positive. It has given us a sense of what we are ready for and what we're not ready for. You know where you stand.
You don't know what you don't know, so it helps us know what we want to know.