NGINX Ingress Controller vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform comparison

"From my experience, I think the main benefit NGINX Ingress Controller provides to the end user is the reliability of NGINX Ingress Controller itself."

"OpenShift provides tools that tell me everything I have on a container, and I can make it on-premise or on a cloud infrastructure."

"They have built on top of Kubernetes. Most of the Kubernetes latest technology is already supported by the solution."

"The best feature is the management for the port life cycle, which automatically recycles, pulls, and scales up and down based on needs and requests."

"Openshift is a very developer-friendly product."

"The product is stable, reliable, and easy to use, from a well-known company, has a large volume handling capacity, and more and more organizations are moving to OpenShift."

"The auto scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, determined from pre-prepared rules is the most valuable feature. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier, such as an ARB deployment. This really helped in rolling out releases without disrupting services for the end-users."

"The tool's most valuable features include high availability, scalability, and security. Other features like advanced cluster management, advanced cluster security, and Red Hat Quay make it powerful for businesses. It also comes with features like OpenShift Virtualization."

"More tools are available in OpenShift Container Platform to maintain and manage the clusters."

"Most customers are satisfied with the reverse proxy capability, but the main issue is that the Ingress NGINX, the one that is most widely used, will be deprecated this month."

"Setting up OpenShift isn't easy. I rate it three out of ten for ease of setup. We're deploying it in three phases. They're in the second phase now. The total deployment time will be five months. We expect to complete the deployment this March. There are 13 people on three teams working on this deployment."

"It has an option to install OpenShift without connecting it to the Internet. We tried this, but it was very hard. We couldn't manage to use that option. We wanted to use it offline for installations, updates, upgrades, etc., but we didn't find the offline installation and updates easy. This could be better."

"The product could benefit from additional operators and tools integrated with OpenShift."

"Metrics monitoring feature needs improvement."

"Another thing that bugs me is that they removed the software in NFS storage. I don't understand why because this is a common type of storage. I am having problems with that, so I wish they would put it back."

"The product's interface is a bit buggy."

"The stability needs improvement."

"There should be a simplification of the overall cluster environment. It should require fewer resources. Just to run a simple Hello World app, it requires about seven servers, and that's just crazy. I understand that it is fully redundant, but it's prohibitively expensive to get something simple going."

"It depends on who you're talking to. For a large corporation, it is acceptable, other than the significant infrastructure requirements. For a small organization, it is in no way suitable, and we'd go for Amazon's container solution."

"The pricing is a bit more expensive than expected."

"We currently have an annual license renewal."

"I'm not familiar with pricing or financial aspects. In terms of effort versus benefit, it's worth it."

"We have to pay for the license."

"We paid for Cloud Pak for integration. It all depends on how many VMs or how many CPUs you are using. They do the licensing based on that."

"The product is expensive."

"I'm an architect, so I have no involvement in the pricing and licensing of the platform."