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

Nutanix Kubernetes Platform (NKP) vs Red Hat OpenShift comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Nutanix Kubernetes Platform...
Ranking in Container Management
17th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat OpenShift
Ranking in Container Management
11th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
61
Ranking in other categories
PaaS Clouds (3rd), Server Virtualization Software (9th), Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms (6th), Agile and DevOps Services (1st)
 

Featured Reviews

Rami Varis - PeerSpot reviewer
Simplifies management for continuous operations with seamless setup and maintenance
The platform is easy to set up, maintain, and update. It is easier to manage compared to other solutions and allows for running in a stable environment. The web-scale platform enables easy scalability, providing value for both enterprise-level and medium-sized companies. It helps businesses solve management and stability challenges in Kubernetes environments.
Mikhael Ibrahim - PeerSpot reviewer
Seamlessly monitor microservices with streamlined DevOps capabilities
Most benefit from it, however, I work with Kubernetes, and installing Vanilla Kubernetes is easy. That said, it introduces many tools that need to be set up individually. OpenShift comes ready out of the box, with all tools installed and configured. Red Hat certifies and confirms that all the components are compatible with each other. OpenShift's superior dashboard is a notable strength, especially when compared to Kubernetes. The integrated DevOps capabilities, such as pipelines and the container registry, are extremely beneficial. Additionally, its capability to monitor microservices and containers with integrated tools like Prometheus is a major advantage. The horizontal pod scaling exceeds the scalability features I found in Kubernetes.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The platform is stable."
"The platform is easy to set up, maintain, and update."
"Self-provisioning support saves a lot of time and unnecessary work from the system administrator who can use this time to run and monitor the infrastructure. For the developer, this means less time waiting for the provisioning and excellent flexibility for development, testing, and production. Also, in such systems it is easy for developers to monitor applications even after deployment."
"OpenShift's superior dashboard is a notable strength, especially when compared to Kubernetes."
"Valuable features include time to market, avoiding vendor lock-in, and the ease of working in a multi-cloud environment."
"The solution offers ease with which we can define how to run applications and configure them. It's much more convenient than creating a virtual machine and configuring application servers, making the process faster and simpler."
"Security is also an important part of this solution. By default, things are running with limited privileges and securely confined to their own resources. This way, different users and projects can all use the same infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the containers."
"I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones."
"The most valuable feature is the auto scalers for all microservices. The feature allows us to place request limits and it is much cheaper than AWS."
 

Cons

"There are some limitations with the non-air gap version as it requires complete internet access, which poses restrictions due to government regulations."
"OpenShift's storage management could be better."
"It would be great if it supported Bitbucket repositories too."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"My team has found some bugs in OpenShift due to continuous integration, and this is an area for improvement in the platform. RedHat should fix the bugs. Another area for improvement in OpenShift is that upgrading clusters can be challenging, resulting in downtime. Application support also needs improvement in OpenShift because the platform doesn't support all applications in the cloud. I'd like upgraded storage in the next release of OpenShift, especially when I need to do a DR exercise. It would also be good if the platform allows mirroring with another cluster, or more portability in terms of moving applications to another cluster."
"OpenShift can improve monitoring. Sometimes there are issues. Additionally, the solution could benefit from protective tools if something was to happen in our network."
"There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift."
"OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets."
"This is a fairly expensive solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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 support is expensive. I would rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten."
"The product has reasonable pricing."
"The product’s pricing is expensive."
"The pricing is standard; the solution isn't particularly expensive or affordable."
"The pricing for OpenShift includes support and licensing, which costs approximately $400."
"Depending on the extent of the product use, licenses are available for a range of time periods, and are renewable at the end of the period."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Management solutions are best for your needs.
851,471 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Energy/Utilities Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Financial Services Firm
31%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Nutanix Kubernetes Platform (NKP)?
I lack the technical knowledge to identify specific areas of improvement. However, I wonder whether all software currently used by companies supports Nutanix Kubernetes Platform or if they need alt...
What is your primary use case for Nutanix Kubernetes Platform (NKP)?
Customers use Nutanix Kubernetes Platform (NKP) ( /products/nutanix-kubernetes-platform-nkp-reviews ) to manage the Kubernetes ( /products/kubernetes-reviews ) platform, providing ease of managemen...
What advice do you have for others considering Nutanix Kubernetes Platform (NKP)?
I would rate the platform nine out of ten. My expertise in sales limits my technical evaluation capabilities, but based on research, it earns a high score.
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 do you like most about OpenShift?
OpenShift facilitates DevOps practices and improves CI/CD workflows in terms of stability compared to Jenkins.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
UPS, Cathay Pacific, Hilton
Find out what your peers are saying about Nutanix Kubernetes Platform (NKP) vs. Red Hat OpenShift and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
851,471 professionals have used our research since 2012.