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

Red Hat OpenShift vs Virtuozzo Application Platform 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

Red Hat OpenShift
Ranking in PaaS Clouds
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Server Virtualization Software (10th), Container Management (12th), Hybrid Cloud Computing Platforms (6th), Agile and DevOps Services (1st)
Virtuozzo Application Platform
Ranking in PaaS Clouds
22nd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the PaaS Clouds category, the mindshare of Red Hat OpenShift is 12.0%, up from 11.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Virtuozzo Application Platform is 0.7%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
PaaS Clouds
 

Featured Reviews

Pratul Shukla - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Miguel Maloney Thompson - PeerSpot reviewer
A scalable and stable solution that has good scalability and is easy to setup
It is a scalable solution. I have yet to have a scenario regarding automatic scale and if there's an increase in resource requirement or need. We have yet to have that scenario. We have yet to test that. The scalability was more than manually adjusting and increasing whatever I had to do. I rate it eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Its interface is good. The other part is the seamless integration with the stack that I have. Because my stack is mostly of Red Hat, which is running on top of VMware virtualization, I have had no issues with integrating both of these and trying to install them. We had a seamless integration with the other non-Red Hat products as well."
"I would recommend Red Hat OpenShift, especially for its automation capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of OpenShift is the security context constraint (SCC). The solution’s security throughout the stack is good. And security context constraints provide port-level security. It's a granular level of control, where you can give privileges to certain users to work on certain applications."
"The security is good."
"We want to build a solution that can be deployable to any cloud because of client requirements and OpenShift allows us to do this."
"What I like best about OpenShift is that it can reduce some of the costs of having multiple applications because you can just move them into small container applications. For example, applications don't need to run for twenty days, only to be used up by Monday. Through OpenShift, you can move some of the small applications into any cloud. I also find the design of OpenShift good."
"Two stand-out features are the security model and value-add features that don't exist in Upstream Kubernetes."
"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."
"The control is valuable. It's really easy to use and you have good control of your solutions."
"The dynamic vertical scaling is a unique feature."
"The advanced level of production-ready Docker hosting, one-click application deployment, and the truly flexible pricing."
"The solution is scalable, and that is what we are looking at. There is no learning curve as we have not done much research."
"Technical support from Jelastic is very good."
 

Cons

"The platform's documentation could be more comprehensive to cover the full spectrum of user needs. Sometimes, achieving specific goals is challenging due to a lack of detailed guidance."
"Autoscaling is a very unique feature, but it could be useful to have more options based on traffic statistics, for example, via Prometheus. So, there should be more ready solutions to autoscale based on specific applications."
"The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance."
"One area for improvement is the documentation. They need to make it a little bit more user-friendly. Also, if you compare certain features and the installation process with Rancher, Rancher is simpler."
"If we can have a GUI-based configuration with better flexibility then it will be great."
"One glaring flaw is how OpenShift handles operators. Sometimes operators are forced to go into a particular namespace. When you do that, OpenShift creates an installation plan for everything in that namespace. These operators may be completely separate from each other and have nothing to do with each other, but now they are tied at the hip. You can't upgrade one without upgrading all of them. That's a huge mistake and highly problematic."
"The area for improvement is mostly in support for legacy applications."
"OpenShift requires a very expensive and complex infrastructure. These demands can deter people from learning OpenShift."
"The security layers also need to be improved because there is no clear layer or tier of security in the solution."
"Lacks better integration into enterprise storage products."
"For now, some customers are requesting support of Docker containers for Windows."
"The backup functionality needs to be improved."
"The backup features need improvement, or rather it should be added, as I could not find it."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's expensive. It may be cheaper to invest in building Vanilla Kubernetes, especially if security is not the number one motivation or requirement. Of course, that's difficult, and in some business areas, such as banking, that's not something you can put as a second priority. In other situations, a Vanilla Kubernetes with a sufficiently strong team can be cheaper and almost as effective."
"The product has reasonable pricing."
"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 licensing cost for OpenShift is expensive when compared to other products. RedHat also charges you additional costs apart from the standard licensing fees."
"My company makes payments towards the licensing costs attached to OpenShift."
"We use the license-free version of Red Hat Openshift but we pay for the support."
"The pricing is standard; the solution isn't particularly expensive or affordable."
"The solution is cost-effective."
"Pricing for providers is revenue-shared based. Providers should invest in hardware to set up the Jelastic cluster."
"I would rate the cost 3 out of 5. There are additional costs other than licensing fees."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which PaaS Clouds solutions are best for your needs.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
29%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Jelastic
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

UPS, Cathay Pacific, Hilton
Hosting Providers: Hidora, Elastx, eApps, SaveInCloud, Infomaniak, Layershift, Valtti, Dogado, Locaweb, Planeetta, dogado, ServInt, Hostnet, Info.nl, Innofield, Lunacloud, Reg.ru, Websolute Private Cloud and Integrators: Joe's Datacenter, Croc, Ciklum, Vergence, Centerprise, GMV Soluciones
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat OpenShift vs. Virtuozzo Application Platform and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.