2 categories · RankedRed Hat OpenShift
Standing by category
| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Managed Kubernetes platforms | Cloud and infrastructure | 0% | 12 of 48 | 30% | 27 | criticized challenger |
| Container and Kubernetes security | Cloud and infrastructure | 0% | 56 of 78 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Aqua Security at 18% |
Movement
By model
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
By framing
What the models said for it
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Strong enterprise SLAs, compliance support, and hybrid deployment capabilities.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Managed Kubernetes · negative prompt · first choice
“Best for regulated enterprises that want one integrated, security-first platform from a single vendor \u2014 at the cost of a steeper learning curve” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Managed Kubernetes · comparative prompt · alternative
“ideal for enterprises needing an opinionated, integrated platform with strong governance, CI/CD, and compliance” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Managed Kubernetes · comparative prompt · alternative
“favored for enterprise environments needing strong governance, security, and multi-cloud portability” Mistral Small · Managed Kubernetes · comparative prompt · alternative
And against it
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“Avoid if you want standard, highly portable Kubernetes API patterns or if you are on a tight budget.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Managed Kubernetes · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid: OpenShift (unless enterprise compliance mandates it)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Managed Kubernetes · negative prompt · hard negative
“Verdict: Consider carefully—good for enterprises needing full security/AI stack, but overkill for many use cases.” Kimi K2 · Managed Kubernetes · negative prompt · soft negative
“Be cautious with OpenShift/Tanzu if you want vanilla Kubernetes with minimal vendor-specific layers.” Perplexity Sonar · Managed Kubernetes · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
What carried it into the answer
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 62 of the 80 answers that named Red Hat OpenShift and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
258 of the 258 domain citations in answers naming Red Hat OpenShift came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Names read as Red Hat OpenShift
Claim this page
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Red Hat OpenShift's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Red Hat OpenShift, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at redhat.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.
Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.