Rancher Labs Reviews

In my company, we use Rancher Labs as an orchestrator for Kubernetes.
We use the tool's in a local on-premises cluster version and not on a managed cloud based one.

I use the solution to manage multiple clusters, which is useful as an orchestrator. My company also uses it for GitOps functionality to have continuous delivery.

The product has multiple good features. One of the solution's good features is that it is the GitOps functionality known as Rancher fleet, which is used for continuous delivery. The tool's UI is very convenient enough to help you manage multiple clusters in the cloud or on-premises, making it a product with which you can manage different clusters and locations. The tool also has a feature that is still kind of maturing, but I think it has very good potential.

This new feature is named Harvester, which is allows users to have virtual machines managed by Kubernetes engine. This is very new technology in the market. I think that Harvester needs to mature as a product, and I think that in the future, it will be very powerful. You have one tool that does many things for you.

Rancher Labs is currently investing in Harvester, as it is an area where improvements are required. I think that in the future, it would be a very powerful tool to compete with giant competitors like VMware, Hyper-V, Proxmox, and other related solutions. The more features it adds, the more the tool's portfolio will be enlarged, making it an appealing product.

I have four years of experience with Rancher Labs at different workplaces. I am a customer of the tool.

I have not had any issues with the stability of the product since it is more used in the underlying infrastructure, which you need to take care of in a company. If you have poor infrastructure, you will have issues with the tool. If you plan it right, then you won't have any issues with the tool in your company.

The product's initial setup phase is neither difficult nor easy, so it is a medium process. You need to have some skills and knowledge in the area of DevOps to be able to deploy it.

In terms of returns on investment, I would say that currently, my company uses the product's open-source version. You cannot get support since it is a free tool. I think many people use the free version of the product. At the end of the day, you are not paying for the product since it is an open-source tool, unlike Red Hat, which is quite expensive. At the end of the day, you gain almost the same features as OpenShift, but with Rancher Labs, everything is free of charge. The tool offers a huge ROI because you are not paying at all for it unless you opt for the premium support, but I think many people just seek help from their own team members who are experienced with the tool.

There are no hidden charges attached to the product unless a user opts for the premium support offered by the solution.

The multi-cluster management of the tool has improved our company's operations as the product facilitates its maintenance. With the tool, it is quite easy for users to upgrade the clusters from Rancher Lab's UI, after which one can also automate it. The tool's GUI is very easy to use, especially if you want to do deployments or change certain stuff. The tool also supports role-based access and various authentication methods like Google SSO. One tool offering centralized access is quite convenient and useful for centralized clustering.

Rancher Labs has handled scaling challenges during deployment since at the end of the day, you know, Rancher Labs is the orchestrator, so you need an infrastructure which can handle the scalability. In terms of features, Rancher Labs fully supports hundreds of nodes, so it is quite scalable as a product. Even the management cluster supports quite large systems, so there are no issues with the tool regarding scalability.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use it. I was in contact with Rancher Labs as I wanted to recommend it to people, and wanted to be an example of a satisfied customer of the tool.

I would say that if you plan it right, the product will be very satisfying.
If you don't deploy Rancher Labs on one node, then you need to plan for high availability and other related areas, regardless of whether you need it in a small or large organization. As a product, don't expect miracles from it if you put it in the wrong way into your environment, the tool itself is just an orchestrator, so it kind of controls your setups, but if your setups are wrong, don't expect it to fix it for you.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We are using Rancher Labs for container orchestration.

We are going through these tools and taking note of the solutions they offer. However, we are still in the process of working on them. Many of our customers have also shown interest in trying these tools, as they are pretty easy. This organization will compare them to other Kubernetes service solution tools. It has a user-friendly UI.

Administration settings is its most valuable feature.

I can't migrate to the newer version. The aforementioned area needs to be considered for improvement in the solution.

I have been using Rancher Labs as a customer for around one and a half years. Currently, we are using the solution’s Kubernetes version.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

It's a good scalable as of now as per our requirement. There are around 30 software engineers using this solution. We have eight daily users who use it to its maximum potential.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The customer service was clear. I rate the solution’s customer service an eight out of ten.

Positive

We have used Tanzu but Rancher Labs is a very user-friendly tool.

The initial setup is easy.

We took around one and a half minutes to deploy the solution.

The documentation is available in a comprehensive range, which guides us on how to proceed with deployment. Initially, we deployed a test cluster, followed by the creation of a production cluster and an integration cluster. We have followed the manual.

I rate the solution’s setup an eight out of ten.

The solution is deployed in-house and different teams are involved in our team, core three members consisting of an architect, engineer, and helper.

Yes, we have seen a return on investment.

I rate it eight out of ten.

The pricing of the solution sits in the mid range, not high and not low. It has a fixed price that you pay every month.

I rate the solution’s pricing a six out of ten.

There is one person required for maintenance, maybe an architect for some suggestions. otherwise, an engineer expert can do the maintenance.

When comparing it to other orchestration tools, I find it to be a valuable tool. It is used differently, while its documentation and overall functionalities are good.

Considering other tools, It is very user friendly and easily manageable.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Rancher Labs is used for container infrastructure, managing containers, and the deployment of containers.

The most valuable feature of Rancher Labs is its user interface, which makes it easier to work with containers and deployments. Kubernetes adds additional complexity into an infrastructure. However, with the Rancher Labs user interface, you don't have to go that deep into the control commands to work with Kubernetes. Rancher Labs makes it possible for users without a deep knowledge of Kubernetes to deploy containers and manage Kubernetes.

The biggest room for improvement in Rancher Labs would be to have a proper upgrading plan. I've seen a few bumps in the past when you upgrade Rancher Labs from one version to a newer version. For example, upgrading from version two dot one to version two dot two was a really big mess, and the whole cloud cluster broke down. That made me very cautious about upgrading Ranger from one version to another. A proper testing environment is an absolute must.

I have been using Rancher Labs since 2018.

Rancher Labs' stability is good but not perfect. For an open-source product, Rancher Labs is still very stable. However, there is room for improvement with the upgrading part. I rate Rancher Labs an eight out of ten for stability.

Rancher Labs is a very scalable solution. I rate Rancher Labs a ten out of ten for scalability.

Rancher Labs has open-source community forums for providing technical support.

Rancher Labs' initial setup is great. They offer two different kinds of setups. The easy one is deploying a single container, which basically does everything for you. However, with this setup, you only have one Rancher running on one node, which is not good for redundancy reasons. The more complex way is using RKE (Rancher Kubernetes Engine) to deploy Kubernetes on at least three nodes.

The deployment of a fresh cluster takes about one to two hours. You can have a fully working Kubernetes cluster within one day.

Although Rancher Labs is an open-source solution, they also offer a paid version, where you buy the support when needed. We were interested in getting the commercial support, but it was too expensive.

OpenShift was evaluated as well.

We are using multiple clusters of Rancher Labs; some are deployed on-prem and some on the cloud. You can deploy anywhere you want as long as the machines are interconnected. So you're not restricted to using on-prem or cloud, and you can even mix those two.

Overall, I rate Rancher Labs a nine out of ten.

I use it for content creation, answering questions, programming help, and more.

The most valuable feature is  its comprehensive support, easy resource scaling, compatibility with various OEMs, and seamless service integration.

One area for improvement in Rancher Labs is the development aspect. Unlike some competitors like OpenShift, Rancher Labs may not offer a complete suite of products for development needs, which could benefit from enhancement. Rancher Labs could enhance its offerings by expanding beyond Kubernetes and providing more support for various organizational processes and developer use cases in the future.

I have been using Rancher Labs for almost two years.

Rancher Labs is definitely stable.

It is a quite scalable solution. Most of our clients are medium-sized businesses.

The technical support is good and the response time is usually not too long. I would rate it as an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is fairly easy. It takes one day to deploy the solution and an architect and an engineer from our company deployed it. It is also easy to maintain.

Pricing for Genesys and Rancher Labs is quite similar, and it varies depending on the specific case and the discounts negotiated from the list price. We have a term license based on a yearly subscription basis. In addition to the license itself, there are additional costs for support and other related services, especially for Kubernetes. These costs are typically paid on a yearly basis.

Genesys seems simpler for server administration, while OpenShift appears more comprehensive than Rancher Labs in terms of products and solutions.

My advice for those considering Rancher Labs is that starting with Rancher is a good choice, especially for app modernization. It is suitable for both smaller and medium-sized projects, making it a versatile option to begin your journey. Overall, I would rate it as an eight out of ten.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is an open-source solution that is easy to deploy.

Since it is an open-source solution, one can integrate it with any tool. Also, many tools are integrated with it already. There needs to be an improvement in observability and microservice monitoring tools in Rancher Labs.

In the future, I would like to see Rancher Labs focus on increasing its popularity within the open-source community and on developing new tools for the community. It would be great to see more tools released by the large community of Rancher Labs.

I have been using Rancher Labs for a year, but we have had it in our company for over three years. My company is a customer of the solution.

It is a stable and popular solution.

We have a different team in our company using the solution. In the administration department, only two people involved in the platform's administration use it. We also have a dev team, a QA team, and a lot of smaller teams using the solution.

Since it is an open-source solution, I refer to the online forum of the solution to resolve my doubts. Considering the product, I believe the technical support may be quite good, so I rate technical support a seven or eight out of ten.

Neutral

Rancher Labs is one of the easiest to deploy compared to other solutions since it is an open-source platform that is easy to manage.

One can deploy it within one or two days since it depends on the readiness of the data plan. It may take less than a week if the deployment process depends on the readiness of the design.

In our company, we deployed the solution on VMware platform. So, we deployed the solution on VMWare cluster.

My company selected Rancher Labs as our preferred solution due to our prior experience with its deployment process. Our company has utilized the solution for more than three years. We began using it during the COVID-19 pandemic when our company's main goal was to reduce costs while virtualizing our on-premises infrastructure platform and keeping pace with our competitors. We were only considering open-source platforms at that time, and our engineering expert recommended Rancher Labs.

Compared to Rancher Labs, a solution like Red Hat OpenShift is more expensive. Additionally, since we do not operate in the banking sector, where data privacy is critical, we do not have the same level of concern regarding data risk management. For us, data risk management is not as crucial as it would be for a company operating in the banking sector. We are planning to migrate to a better solution.

If a company or business wants to go for an open-source solution, then Rancher Labs is the best one. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

This product is mainly used for monitoring. 

We can manage the cluster easily. They have an open-source option so we can manage everything with the Rancher. 

The initial setup is simple and straightforward. 

The features like that included in Kubernetes, Q, EKS, and AECS should be included in the Rancher Labs.

We'd like their monitoring tool to be integrated by default. It would be great for a cluster monitoring tool. 

I've worked with the solution for four years. 

It's a stable product. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

Scaling is not required. This solution is only for monitoring only. 

As of now, I have not required the assistance of technical support.

I also work with Kubernetes and prefer it for the learning curve. For production, I prefer OpenShift.

It is straightforward and simple to set up. It is not overly complex. 

Based on the cluster, the deployment only takes about ten to 15 minutes. 

If there is a cluster deployment, it means only one user will be present to install Rancher, and only a normal user is required. One user is enough for the installation and management point. It's not difficult to maintain.

As for the maintenance, if you install any tool in a particular node, then we need to maintain it for security patching. Apart from that, they do not require any maintenance.

It is an open-source solution. We don't need any specific license in order to use it. 

I'm working with the latest version of the solution. 

Rancher is highly recommended. Many tools are available. If you go for AWS, they have a tool; if you go for Azure, they give you a separate tool and service. However, if you prefer no downtime, OpenShift is the best tool.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use Rancher Labs primarily to deploy applications in microservices and Kubernetes environments. Our clients come from various industries, including IT and non-tech sectors.

The customized deployment process is the most valuable feature in Rancher Labs.  

While Rancher Labs provides some level of security, it's not considered very robust. We found it to offer basic security features, which met some of our requirements, but we also relied on other open-source solutions for additional security measures. The main improvement I'd like to see in Rancher Labs is better support for multicloud deployments. This would address a lot of existing issues.

I have been using Rancher Labs for the past two years. 

Rancher Labs is very stable, I'd rate it a nine out of ten. 

In terms of scalability, Rancher Labs is good but has some issues with automation scalability that could be improved. Currently, we have more than five thousand users, and there might be plans to increase usage in the future.

I find Rancher Labs' customer support to be excellent, although I've never had to use it myself.

The setup experience with Rancher Labs is very easy, I would rate it a ten out of ten for setup ease. The deployment time for Rancher Labs varies depending on the application. For example, we built a disaster recovery site for a customer in just forty-five minutes, including deployment and application setup.We can deploy Rancher Kubernetes in our customized way without manual intervention. This includes deploying applications on top, all with automated processes. For instance, we can quickly create and connect clusters on demand or build a cluster with multiple nodes in just a few minutes using automation commands.

It has saved us around fifty-five percent in both time and money.

The cost is reasonable since it's open-source. Rancher effectively addresses container orchestration trends, especially for those with some Kubernetes knowledge. 

My advice is to deploy Rancher Labs without hesitation—it's user-friendly and efficient. Overall, I rate it a nine out of ten.

We use this solution to optimize and manage our multi-terabyte, core banking application logs on our servers.

This solution is not vendor-locked, which means that we we are able to use it across all of our resources; this feature is of great value to us.

We also like that the UI for this solution has been improved, which has made it easier to use.

We have found that the auto-secure feature of this solution doesn't always work, and could be improved to be more reliable, particularly when working with business critical applications.

We have been using this solution for two or three years.

The stability of this solution is good, except for the auto-secure feature, whose use impacts the performance of the product.

We found the initial setup for this solution to be easy.

We implemented this solution using our in-house DevOps team.

This is an open-source solution, so there are no licensing costs involved.

We would definitely recommend this solution to other organizations.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Rancher has two main versions which are completely different products. They have some similarities because they have a similar UI and similar concept but are different under the hood. The original Rancher was an orchestration platform for Docker containers based on Cattle and we used that solution for three years extensively for different products and on different projects. We're also now using the Rancher 2 on top of the Kubernetes to manage Docker containers for different customers, for projects, to seize logs, to seize mentorings, to downscale or upscale applications. They provide a great catalog of applications that can be created. We recently used Rancher two for another project that was hosted on top of AWS and on-premise servers. It provides and deploys infrastructures, providing UI for the dev team, the management team, QA team, and enables us to see everything that's going on.

The solution has saved us a lot of time by not requiring us to configure the all details including monitoring, logging, Kubernetes node provisioning on top of public cloud services. 

This product has a great UI and because the products are all self-contained in the solution, it provides great features and is easily deployable with a very good integrations. 

I'd like to see this solution become more stable and have more integrations with other Rancher Labs products, such as Rancher Longhorn.

We've used Rancher products for the last four years. 

We have had some issues as a result of the complexity but it's stable overall. 

The scalability is great, it very much depends on the underlying infrastructure. 

We have used Kubernetes without Rancher so we've used different approaches for our needs. We switched for several reasons: Rancher has a great UI, its operational costs were less, and there were not too many competitors on the market when we switched to use the first Rancher. It was really, I believe, the best on the market in terms of managing containers. Since Rancher 2.0 migrated to Kubernetes, we found that we could manage this directly using dashboards and tools from the community. 

It's definitely easy to deploy, easy to connect to existing clusters or to provide new clusters, scaling of applications, application logs, and multi cluster setup. The initial setup is variable depending on the size of the company and the project. It can take anywhere from 15 minutes to two days. 

The ROI for us has been improved visibility, speed of deployment, reliability, and we have great feedback. We were able to save on time in marketing the applications. 

We used the free open source version so there were no costs associated with licensing. I know it's possible to get support but I don't know the cost. I think it's minimal. 

We evaluated a lot of other products including Elastic Container Service, its Azure App Services, Google App Engine and DigitalOcean hosting options, which is an Oracle application, and many more. We did market research and carried out evaluations and took a look at all available free and open source solutions. When we decided to use the first version of Rancher, it provided the best UI, the best scalability and stability. It's better than ECS which uses other tools for monitoring and logging. There is a different UI and the cloud tools are not as user friendly. When we took a look at other tools each of them had something wrong from our point of view. 

We immigrated from Rancher 2.0 to the AWS ECS. The idea behind initially using Rancher was as an option to native cloud services. Because it provides all features we could configure it in less time than it would take to use the public cloud services. By using this solution we've learned how to manage complex infrastructures and microservices, and how to provide visibility and audit for different teams. 

Rancher has established partnerships and they have tightly integrated it in the public cloud, such as AWS or Google cloud. I would recommend that anyone wanting to try it, install it, play with it, and see the pros and cons. It's something that anyone should do with all the other competitors and solutions.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We are using Rancher Labs' for the overall management of our Kubernetes cluster. For example, we manage the production and UAT environment of all our applications or containers.

The solution has a lot of good features, such as you can access the console and edit through the GUI. The dashboard and the UI are designed well, user-friendly, and easy to manage, and access.

The solution could improve by adding more features in the dashboard, such as monitoring, scanning, and security. This would be a great benefit.

I have used Rancher Labs for approximately one year.

The solution is stable.

We have not had any issues with scalability.

We have not paid for the support for the solution.

The initial setup is easy.

We did the implementation of the solution.

The solution is free and open source but there is a fee for support.

We have been evaluating Red Hat OpenShift, Kubernetes, Tanzu, and Nirmata.

I rate Rancher Labs an eight out of ten.