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
Portainer
Score 9.6 out of 10
N/A
Portainer is a centralized container management platform for containerized apps and IoT device management. It helps accelerate container adoption and reduce time-to-value on Kubernetes, Docker, and Swarm with a management portal, allowing users to deliver and manage containerized applications from the data center to the edge. Portainer helps - Reduce the operational complexity associated with multi-cluster management Bridge the skills gap and facilitate feature…
$0
Pricing
Mirantis Kubernetes Engine
Portainer
Editions & Modules
Free
$0.00
per year
Basic
$500.00
per year
Portainer Business - 3 Nodes Free
$0
Home & Student
$149
per year
Starter
$995
per year
Professional
$2995
per year
Enterprise
Contact Sales for Pricing
per year
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Mirantis Kubernetes Engine
Portainer
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
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 …
Dyrectorio was nice but it feels unpolished Ugreen has docker management on its UGOS Pro and it seems quite nice for start but its UI is quite a bit worse then Portainer Another downside is that its GUI seems to be locked on a specific port for now
Had already more experience using Portainer and it was covering all immediate needs where scalability was not a concern. Definitely easier to use and to get started for anyone.
Portainer is open source and can be installed as a docker container. Portainer can also be used free of charge as a business edition for a limited number of installations. All you have to do is register with Portainer and receive a license key. Portainer is very easy to install …
Azure and AWS have their own issues, especially around complexity just to setup one thing that Portainer can do in 10 seconds. Octopus deploy has excellent logs, analytics and dashboard views - but the configuration is more of a hassle than Portainer. Overall for the projects …
Portainer is very simple to use for anyone who is new to docker and trying to build a server. It makes everything super easy to use because of it’s excellent UI/UX which makes it a good tool for beginners!
I wrote that earlier, I tried Docker desktop so many bugs with WSL and not free and it get sign out every login time, Tried SUSE rancher too complicated and good only for power users and whoever runs Kubernetes and very heavy. tried Dokage very simple and couldn’t do …
Portainer is, in my opinion, the most accessible and straight-forward means of entering the world of deploying and managing containers while also maintaining the ability to progress into advanced professional deployments and use.
Portainer takes the cup in terms of usability and features. It is also more useful for smaller deployments, whereas Kubernetes in our opinion and experience, could probably be more suited to certain other use cases. Portainer is also a fresh feel among all the preexisting …
Initially looked into using Rancher for container management but it is
aimed more at kubernetes deployments. I have used both at home and liked
Portainer more, especially since we are using docker standalone. From
In Kubernetes management, in my opinion I would say that Lens is superior. But if you only want to manage a few stacks, Portainer is superior because the gui offers a comprehensive way of managing all the deployed images and its versions.
Microsoft Azure, and arguably the leader in the field. The most negative point and which made us make the decision not to continue with them and to go with Portainer is the price. This is one of the most important points to consider, especially in small companies.
The reason I chose Portainer is that graphically it wins over Yacht, it has many more options to use even in the free version. You can connect more than one environment to one panel which makes it much easier to use multiple instances of Portainer and saves a lot of time.
I am using Rancher in Kubernetes environments. It was really the first product I used with it and never really had time to test out how well Portainer behaves on Kubernetes. For the exact same thing - Docker Swarm management I used Swarmpit some time ago, but I like Portainer …
Portainer is a user-friendly container management platform focused on Docker, providing a simplified graphical interface. Kubernetes (K8s) is a robust container orchestration platform that automates deployment and scaling, suitable for complex container environments. Docker is …
Portainer is a lot easier to use when compared to kubernetes. it is easy to get over whelmed by all the options in kubernetes but portainer makes it simple to build and deploy even to kubernetes.
Portainer seems to be the best when you start with small environments and can grow with them. Portainer is also good for beginners with not too much knowledge about containers. Finally the start-up with 5 nodes for free was a great benefit.
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.
Many developers, especially lesser experienced developers, don't have a really good background in setting up containers from the command line. Portainer is invaluable to them. Giving a UI to them gives them much more confidence and allows them to learn properties and capabilities of containers under far less stress. On the flip side of this, giving then a UI on a production system can lead to chaos...never give junior developers access to production servers.
Separating server maintenance with application development, providing a clear user interface for developers who don't want to worry about the underlying server.
RBAC for container deployment linked to a SAML IDP, not something particularly easy in a native Docker instance but point and shoot in Portainer, allowing the use of Azure / Okta etc to provide user access.
Image management with multiple repositories is super clear and reduces incidents
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.
Lack of granular RBAC control: While Portainer does have role-based access control (RBAC) features, they are not as granular as some users would like. Some users have reported that they would like to have more control over permissions for individual users or groups. This would enable more fine-grained control over who has access to which containers or clusters.
Limited support for non-Docker container technologies: While Portainer is primarily designed to manage Docker containers, it does have some limited support for other container technologies like Kubernetes and Docker Swarm. However, this support is not as robust as it is for Docker, and some users have reported that they would like to see better support for other container technologies.
Limited control over container networking: Portainer's networking features are somewhat limited compared to other container management tools. Some users have reported that they would like more control over container networking, including the ability to create custom networks and control IP addresses.
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.
Accessibility for Non-Experts: even with some people having a bit longer on-boarding it is still very simple Quick setup is insanely useful, we can get it running in 10 seconds after installing docker Portainer has once again super clean UI and is very user friendly. Deployment/monitoring and management are super easy. I can tell just from a glance if something is out of date (watching at you Watchtower not doing your job for some reason)
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.
One of their staff members jumped on a video call immediately with me and led me through the problem and solution during a quick session of screen sharing. In this day and age that is above and beyond, especially when it comes to software. It took approximately 5-10 minutes to diagnose and fix, including pleasantries!
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.
Portainer takes the cup in terms of usability and features. It is also more useful for smaller deployments, whereas Kubernetes in our opinion and experience, could probably be more suited to certain other use cases. Portainer is also a fresh feel among all the preexisting container management solutions and brings positivity and a new breeze in the industry.
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.
Instead of having 1 senior who does all the setup, debugging and caretaking of "all things docker" we now split the load on basically everyone in the team. Hard to put into direct numbers but with everyone helping themselves, noone alone is forced into that position "because you know how to do it" and overall we're more productive