CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended) vs. IBM Cloud Managed Istio

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended)
Score 7.0 out of 10
N/A
CoreOS rkt or Container Linux was a rival to Docker that was acquired by Red Hat, then given to the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF). The project has since been discontinued.N/A
IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
The IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service provides the Managed Istio installation add on, designed to provide additonal control over clusters and the microservices they comprise via automatic updates and lifecycle management of control plane components, and integration with platform logging and monitoring tools.N/A
Pricing
CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended)IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended)IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended)IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Features
CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended)IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended)
-
Ratings
IBM Cloud Managed Istio
8.0
Ratings
0% above category average
Ease of building user interfaces00 Ratings6.90 Ratings
Scalability00 Ratings7.90 Ratings
Platform management overhead00 Ratings7.80 Ratings
Workflow engine capability00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Platform access control00 Ratings8.70 Ratings
Services-enabled integration00 Ratings8.60 Ratings
Development environment creation00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Development environment replication00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Issue recovery00 Ratings8.90 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes00 Ratings7.20 Ratings
Best Alternatives
CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended)IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Small Businesses
Portainer
Portainer
Score 9.6 out of 10
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Enterprises
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended)IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Likelihood to Recommend
7.0
(0 ratings)
8.7
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
6.4
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended)IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Likelihood to Recommend
It is very well suited for local testing where one knows what is being worked on and knows all the dependencies of the software project. On the other hand, it would be less appropriate in situations where a simple chroot can do the trick without the overhead of running a Go application.
Read full review
It is a perfect application when you have multiple users and/or developers and you want to create rules and standards for access and the ability to change access levels. The reporting of usage is good, but adding more granularity into the metrics that have been used to measure are not specific enough. They provide detail but drilling into the detail would be more appropriate i.e. access to the baseline data.
Read full review
Pros
  • Running a secure container without messing up with low-level details
  • Very clear and straightforward approach to building a container
  • A way to go for new projects thinking of containers
  • Comprehensive and well-written documentation compatible with UNIX keep it simple way of thinking
Read full review
  • Debug issues
  • Monitoring
  • allows many services form many different sources
Read full review
Cons
  • Market share, it's often very difficult to find new talent who use CoreOS rkt.
  • Lack of wow features, CoreOS rkt doesn't necessarily offer any immediate advantages over other container solutions.
Read full review
  • Still missing functionalities for a full usage as traffic director.
Read full review
Support Rating
No answers on this topic
Training and usage support available
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
We evaluated CoreOS rkt and Docker when selecting software solutions for my department. We ended up using CoreOS rkt because of how well it fits with CoreOS and the choice of gRPC for the API. We provide a managed service that runs CoreOS on a bare metal server, CoreOS rkt was a logical choice for compatibility. We also found that developers were having better scusess interacting with gRPC than other container engines REST protocols. It was a close race but eventually there were just enough small benefits to push CoreOS rkt in front of the competition.
Read full review
1) One-stop solution for all the complex network connectivity managed by [IBM Cloud Managed Istio]. 2) Nice dashboard to understand the flow. 3) Easy to troubleshoot the service if any one of the APIs is not responding. 4) We can integrate it with Azure Kubernetes service and other cloud provider Kubernetes services. 5) Monitoring the health of the pods can be easily configured and alerts can be triggered very accurately with this tool.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Developers spend less time configuring and more time coding.
  • Less time training developers as CoreOS rkt lets them use whatever hardware and operating system they want.
  • Reduced our IT costs, solutions are containerized using CoreOS rkt meaning they can write one solution with many developers in mind.
Read full review
  • Management burden is reduced resulting in positive ROI.
  • Application is being seamlessly instrumented with good impact on business.
Read full review
ScreenShots