Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AWS Outposts vs Red Hat OpenShift comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS Outposts
Ranking in Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms
6th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat OpenShift
Ranking in Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
PaaS Clouds (3rd), Server Virtualization Software (9th), Container Management (9th), Agile and DevOps Services (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms category, the mindshare of AWS Outposts is 10.1%, down from 14.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat OpenShift is 8.1%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Red Hat OpenShift8.1%
AWS Outposts10.1%
Other81.8%
Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

AD
Strategic Cloud Consultant at Shell
Seamless and simplified migration of applications with significant low latency
The most valuable aspect is that it comes in a rack form factor which makes it incredibly easy to use and deploy various AWS services. You can start with foundational services like EC2, and then expand to container management with ECS and Kubernetes with EKS. You can also take advantage of EBS for storage needs, manage databases using RDS, and ensure load balancing with ALBs. It essentially brings a comprehensive range of AWS services to your on-premises environment in a convenient rack format.
Pratul Shukla - PeerSpot reviewer
Vice President at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Adopting a flexible and efficient approach with noticeable improvements in operational costs and continued challenges in job management
Currently, one of the biggest challenges we face is with services and jobs. For spawning batches, although it has crons, it is not easy to integrate with enterprise systems such as Autosys. The entire company uses Autosys, but we are not able to integrate it effectively. We need intermediate servers to run OC utility commands and initiate the cron job. We have to do a lot of modifications to ensure our batches work properly. With physical or virtual servers, even in AWS, we are able to write and manage multiple jobs. Managing batches in Red Hat OpenShift has been a significant challenge. Integrating third parties is a challenge with Red Hat OpenShift. For example, with Elasticsearch, onboarding itself was difficult, running file beats and dealing with routing issues. It is not straightforward, especially since we have some components in AWS as. AWS has many capabilities that come out of the box and are easier to work with compared to Red Hat OpenShift. Red Hat OpenShift's biggest disadvantage is they do not provide any private cloud setup where we can host on our site using their services. The main reason we went with Red Hat OpenShift was because it is a private cloud, and we have regulatory requirements that prevent us from using public cloud.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable aspect is that it comes in a rack form factor which makes it incredibly easy to use and deploy various AWS services."
"The most valuable aspect is its ability to provide interfaces for events."
"AWS can manage services when deployed on customer sites due to Outposts' capability of being installed in on-premises environments."
"AWS Outposts brings native AWS services, infrastructure, and API to our on-premises data center or co-location facilities."
"With AWS, we've had seamless integration and support for many of our applications."
"I think the keys to success for the solution is the easy-to-use user interface and the fact that the development team really likes the platform."
"Outposts allows you to isolate your private environment from the public cloud provider while enabling almost all the features that are available on public cloud services. That is the beauty of this service. It's an infrastructure that you can put in your data center and seamlessly connect to the public cloud."
"If you compare with the full bundle of these services, you can see the difference. This is enough for these locations in private data centers. Because the main reasons why the customers want to have it on their side are for the low latency and the security of their critical data."
"Key features are WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure and the git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure."
"A valuable feature of Red Hat OpenShift is its ability to handle increased loads by automatically adding nodes."
"OpenShift offers an easy-to-use graphical user interface for cluster management, making it more accessible for administrators."
"Two stand-out features are the security model and value-add features that don't exist in Upstream Kubernetes."
"OpenShift offers robust tools for monitoring application traffic, allowing us to analyze client requests and other business-related metrics."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is the great customer service and the ability for our team to get assistance when we need it."
"We are currently dealing with both local support and Red Hat support, and they have been amazing."
"I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones."
 

Cons

"Depending on the installation process, we have found some bugs and issues with the solution when the same platform is not used."
"It would be great if it could support Glue services."
"Outposts supports elastic coordinator services, but not elastic container services, which is the native service for containers in AWS. That is something missing in this product."
"The pricing model needs improvement because right now it's very expensive. All of these solutions are very expensive and it prevents other customers or owners of data centers from buying it."
"Also, it would be beneficial if AWS allowed for more granular and customizable pricing options."
"It would be beneficial to have the option for capacity expansion."
"The product is heavy to ship and can be difficult to handle logistically."
"The platform needs to spend more time investing in strengthening its governance and information tools and consider the real needs of its customers."
"There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift."
"It would be great if it supported Bitbucket repositories too."
"There are challenges related to additional security layers, connectivity compliance for endpoints, and integration."
"Its virtual upgrades are time-consuming."
"Areas where Red Hat OpenShift can be improved include the licensing being a bit complex and maybe expensive, as that is something in the hands of the organization's higher management, especially when those licensing agreements are done, and I think Red Hat OpenShift is quite resource-heavy because the control plane and default monitoring stack consume significant resources, meaning for small clusters, a large percentage of compute goes just to running Red Hat OpenShift itself, not our apps."
"Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement."
"One of the features that I've observed in Tanzu Mission Control is that I can manage multiple Kubernetes environments. For instance, one of my lines of business is using OpenShift OKD; another one wants to use Google Anthos, and somebody else wants to use VMware Tanzu. If I have to manage all these, Tanzu Mission Control is giving me the opportunity to completely manage all of my Kubernetes clusters, whereas, with OpenShift, I can only manage a particular area. I can't manage other Kubernetes clusters. I would like to have the option to manage all Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift."
"This solution could be improved by offering best practices on standardization and additional guidance on how to use this solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"While the longer-term pricing is suitable for enterprise contracts, it can be on the higher side, especially when organizations don't utilize all the services included in the bundles."
"Customers should consider the high cost, which can range from $10,000 to hundreds of thousands depending on the components."
"The pricing of Outposts needs to be evaluated from the standpoint of what's cost-effective at your company: How are you going to use it? How much money will it save for your products or applications? Is it worth it? I would say it's probably too expensive for small or medium-sized companies. However, big companies might find it to be highly cost-effective depending on their respective cloud strategies."
"AWS Outposts is a cheap solution."
"We use the license-free version of Red Hat Openshift but we pay for the support."
"We had a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) license for all our servers' operating systems. By having multiple Red Hat products together, you can negotiate costs and leverage on having a sort of enterprise license agreement to reduce the overall outlay or TCO."
"The model of pricing and buying licences is quite rigid. We are in the process of negotiating on demand pricing which will help us take advantage of the cloud as a whole."
"The price depends on the type and the nature of the organizations, along with the types of projects that are of considerable range."
"The product’s pricing is expensive."
"This solution is fairly expensive but comes at an average cost compared to other solutions in the market."
"The pricing is standard; the solution isn't particularly expensive or affordable."
"The solution is cost-effective."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Healthcare Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise43
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about AWS Outposts?
With AWS, we've had seamless integration and support for many of our applications.
What needs improvement with AWS Outposts?
Outposts is not a simple solution to implement as it needs to be shipped from the US and involves high delivery costs and running costs. The product is heavy to ship and can be difficult to handle ...
What advice do you have for others considering AWS Outposts?
I rate AWS Outposts a nine out of ten, indicating room for some improvement.
How does OpenShift compare with Amazon AWS?
Open Shift makes managing infrastructure easy because of self-healing and automatic scaling. There is also a wonderful dashboard mechanism to alert us in case the application is over-committing or ...
Which would you recommend - Pivotal Cloud Foundry or OpenShift?
Pivotal Cloud Foundry is a cloud-native application platform to simplify app delivery. It is efficient and effective. The best feature is how easy it is to handle external services such as database...
What needs improvement with OpenShift?
Areas where Red Hat OpenShift can be improved include the licensing being a bit complex and maybe expensive, as that is something in the hands of the organization's higher management, especially wh...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Philips, Morningstar
UPS, Cathay Pacific, Hilton
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Outposts vs. Red Hat OpenShift and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.