Mirantis Container Cloud excels in Kubernetes management, deployment ease, security, performance insights, and flexible, multi-cloud operational efficiency.

Ensure strong security and documentation when using Mirantis Container Cloud, and consider alternatives for cost-effective scalability and compatibility.

Mirantis Container Cloud offers flexible pricing, with free community edition and cost-effective features like auto-scaling and open-source benefits.

Mirantis Container Cloud usage duration varies significantly, with user experience spanning from six months to over seven years.

{"quote":"User experience can be improved by simplifying the setup and configuration process to reduce operational overhead.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Streamlining container monitoring, which is currently complex to set up, and providing advanced analytics for predicting potential issues before impacting the production environment could also be beneficial.","score":"10"}

{"quote":"Enhancing RBAC integration with identity providers like LDAP and Okta would secure access to container resources better.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Mirantis Container Cloud could improve in simplifying security and compliance management, particularly in vulnerability scanning and patching.","score":"9"}

Mirantis Container Cloud is praised for its stability and reliability in production, scoring highly for seamless microservice management.

Users compared Mirantis Container Cloud with Docker, Google Kubernetes, and Red Hat OpenShift, choosing based on familiarity and features.

Mirantis Container Cloud boosts agility, scalability, and cost-efficiency by enhancing deployment speed, security, and application portability across platforms.

{"quote":"It simplifies deployment through managed Kubernetes services and allows for a streamlined command-line setup.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"It includes an observability and monitoring solution through Grafana and Datadog which, even though it can be improved, still provides insights into cloud performance.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Its integration with identity providers like LDAP and Okta ensures secure user access to container resources.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Mirantis Container Cloud provides significant features such as real-time vulnerability scanning and patching for container images and Kubernetes components, reducing security risks.","score":"9"}

We use Mirantis Container Cloud for secure and efficient container management, benefiting from features like real-time vulnerability scanning and identity integration. While improvements in security management and user experience are needed, it integrates well with previously used Docker Swarm.

<p>Mirantis Container Cloud offers excellent support with a transparent billing system. It enhances organizational agility through scalable architectures and integrates with Kubernetes to improve container management and developer workflows. The platform facilitates efficient development environments and quick deployment, though deployment requires system knowledge and improved documentation. Despite challenges in setup complexity and security management, enhancing integration and features would improve its functionality and industry fit.</p>

Users previously utilized Vagrant, Docker, LXC, Google Kubernetes, and VMware's VM-based setups. Many transitioned to Docker for its image creation speed and low overhead. Some did not use prior technologies before implementing Mirantis Container Cloud. Docker Swarm also integrated with Mirantis due to Docker's enterprise offerings. Developers switched from Docker Desktop to open-source tools, while others moved to Kubernetes environments.

Mirantis Container Cloud offers a range of pricing options, from free community editions to paid enterprise solutions. Pricing is highly variable, depending on specific organizational needs and agreements, ranging from $100 to $100,000 monthly. Some find the costs competitive, while others feel third-party solutions appear cheaper initially. Licensing can be complex but offers extensive features and benefits. Notably, many users emphasize the open-source element, allowing for cost-effective experimentation and scaling with features like managed Kubernetes.

<p>Basic support is challenging, especially with firewall and cloud server configurations, making backup implementations difficult.</p><p>Security improvements are needed to address external risks, vulnerability scanning, and patching.</p><p>Documentation is inadequate, requiring improvement to assist users with system deployment and management.</p><p>Integration with Windows and other platforms requires enhancements, emphasizing a need for better collaboration.</p><p>Orchestration, tracing, and stability need refinement to meet industry standards and improve efficiency.</p>

<p>Mirantis Container Cloud surpasses its competitors by offering seamless lifecycle management, robust multi-cloud capabilities, and an intuitive user interface, empowering organizations to efficiently deploy, manage, and scale containerized applications across diverse environments.</p>

Mirantis Container Cloud's initial setup is generally straightforward and quick, often completed within a day or two. Users appreciate the detailed online documentation and the ability to manage installations via Docker Desktop UI. While expertise helps in swift deployment, inexperienced users might face challenges, especially on different operating systems. Deployments typically require a day or two, with organizations benefiting from DevOps assistance. Azure and AWS are common deployment environments due to scalability benefits.

The implementation of Mirantis Container Cloud varies among clients, often requiring customization due to differing requirements and infrastructure. Vendors handle deployment, sometimes needing external consultants for production environments. Development stability can be an issue, needing strict standards and discipline. Many providers use in-house teams but coordinate with AWS or Azure for additional support when necessary. Images created follow strict standards, reducing maintenance needs in data centers.

Mirantis Container Cloud has decent customer service and technical support, with options for 8x5 and 24x7 availability. Users frequently leverage extensive documentation and active communities for resolving issues. Some find direct support challenging, relying on documentation and community forums instead. Others have dedicated teams for troubleshooting, while certain complications are managed through partners in Europe. Limited access due to regional restrictions affects support availability. Users appreciate educational materials and recommend enhancements for interaction channels.

Many users opt for on-premises deployment of Mirantis Container Cloud, reflecting a preference for direct control. Hybrid Cloud is another popular choice, indicating flexibility in infrastructure management among organizations. Public Cloud deployment is also utilized, albeit less frequently, suggesting a reliance on external resources. Private Cloud is chosen by some for its security features, although it appears less common. Overall, these deployment methods showcase varied infrastructure approaches among different entities.

<p>Mirantis Container Cloud offers exceptional support and a straightforward billing system.</p>
<p>It enhances organizational agility with a microservices approach and provides scalable solutions for distributed systems.</p>
<p>Users appreciate the ease of setting up and the fast deployment capabilities.</p>
<p>Mirantis Container Cloud's integration with Kubernetes facilitates efficient management of containers and CI/CD systems.</p>
<p>It improves development times by allowing for quick spin-offs of new instances for various developmental and testing needs.</p>

Most users prefer Microsoft Azure for Mirantis Container Cloud, citing it three times out of four cases. Google Cloud is mentioned once, but Azure's name appears more frequently, indicating its popularity among users when choosing a platform.

Mirantis Container Cloud users note several areas for development including improved file system performance on Mac, enhanced security, better documentation, and seamless integration with traditional software. They also seek simplification in networking for non-experts, advanced automation, better orchestration, and enhanced internal network management. More integrations, GUI improvements for user-friendliness, dynamic load-balancing, policy-based management, streamlined container deployment, and effective monitoring and analytics are desired to enhance usability and efficiency.

Users have experience with Mirantis Container Cloud ranging from six months to over seven years.

<p>Users advise others to assess their organization's capabilities before adopting Mirantis Container Cloud. They recommend taking basic courses for better understanding and emphasize the importance of considering security and monitoring tools. It's noted that the platform eases deployment and management across environments. Users suggest keeping an open mind about container runtimes and highlight Mirantis Container Cloud's scalability and centralized configuration benefits. The platform is praised for simplifying complex applications and optimizing DevOps workflows.</p>

Mirantis Container Cloud provides stability, maintaining reliability in 24/7 production environments. Most issues arise due to internal errors rather than cloud stability. Users report minimal bugs or glitches. Docker requires orchestrators like Kubernetes for enhanced stability. Mirantis Container Cloud is highly rated, often scoring eight to ten out of ten in terms of stability. It supports easy microservice setup and management, receiving positive feedback for central configuration and coherence. Users find it nearly perfect for their needs.

Mirantis Container Cloud excels in scalability, rapid deployment, and container management. Its integration with Kubernetes offers streamlined CI/CD workflows and microservice reconfiguration. Users appreciate multi-cloud support, real-time vulnerability scanning, and secure access via LDAP and Okta, alongside Grafana and Datadog monitoring. The user-friendly interface enhances system efficiency while deployment automation facilitates environment-specific changes. Its ability to isolate applications conserves computing resources effectively.

Mirantis Container Cloud enhances organizations with consistent environments, reduced development time, increased flexibility, and scalable applications. It enables quick deployment, cost efficiency, and improved security management. Teams benefit from production parity, app isolation, and faster processes. It facilitates high availability, simplifies management, and allows rapid container deployment. Organizations experience significant time savings in testing and development, improved agility, and efficient scalability for distributed systems using microservices. Optimized costs through auto-scaling and reduced security risks are evident.

Organizations use Mirantis Container Cloud for various applications, including electronic commerce, lab costing, and cybersecurity data processing. It's employed in development and production environments, aiding in containerization, CI/CD workflows, and microservices management. Users rely on it for scalable, agile solutions and hybrid deployments. It supports Kubernetes integration, packaging, and configuration of applications, optimizing security and cost efficiency with auto-scaling capabilities. Azure and AWS Kubernetes services are also supported for enhanced deployment management.

Mirantis Container Cloud is highly scalable, supporting various industries and adapting to different user needs. Challenges exist, especially with orchestration switches and licensing, yet users report seamless scalability facilitated by Docker. It accommodates both small and large user bases, with companies rapidly increasing user capacity. The need for technical discipline is noted, but many find the platform efficient for scaling, rating its scalability highly.

Users explored alternatives such as Docker, Google Kubernetes, VMware, Hyper-V, Amazon, Rackspace, and Red Hat's OpenShift. Many focused on Docker due to its popularity and familiarity, while Red Hat's OpenShift was noted for its UI-based management platform. Some did not explore beyond Docker, while others evaluated a range of options without finding better fits for their needs.

Tech sector initially used various architectures, later opting for CA PAM or Symantec for cost-effective, quick deployment solutions.

Most users prefer deploying Symantec Privileged Access Manager on-premises, although some opt for a hybrid cloud approach.

{"quote":"Setup can be completed within an hour.","quality_score":9,"sentiment_score":9}

{"quote":"If you have a user base of 300 to 400 parallel sessions, you can manage it in a clustered environment.","quality_score":7,"sentiment_score":6}

{"quote":"Symantec Privileged Access Manager can handle up to 4,000 remote sessions per node.","quality_score":8,"sentiment_score":7}

Symantec Privileged Access Manager's customer service receives mixed reviews, with praise for support but concerns about response times and expertise.

{"quote":"It is simple to implement and is suitable for medium to large-scale enterprises.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"8"}

The initial setup of Symantec Privileged Access Manager is easy, but network complexity and Java requirements can cause issues.

Symantec Privileged Access Manager enhances security with two-factor authentication, session management, and password control, benefiting enterprises like financial sectors.

3.26667

6.0

Thorough testing, professional installation, redundancy, and training are crucial for successful Symantec Privileged Access Manager deployment.

Symantec Privileged Access Manager excels in scalability for large enterprises, though identity management and peak usage issues need addressing.

Symantec Privileged Access Manager enhances security with access controls, seamless integration, and user-friendly management of privileged credentials.

8.5

Symantec Privileged Access Manager suffers from weak rule management, limited reporting, poor integration, and has scalability and support issues.

Users have relied on Symantec Privileged Access Manager for varying durations, ranging from under one year to nearly twelve years.

{"quote":"I've never seen the cluster going down.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"It is quite stable, especially in managing the cluster environment.","score":"8"}

Symantec Privileged Access Manager is generally stable, with occasional initial challenges and Java-related issues reported by users.

Symantec Privileged Access Manager offers competitive pricing influenced by licensing and infrastructure costs, with planning and negotiation essential.

CA was selected for ease of use and integration, especially in Unix/Linux, over competitors like CyberArk and IBM.

Symantec Privileged Access Manager enhances security and governance by automating access controls, boosting accountability, and minimizing threats.

{"quote":"Symantec Privileged Access Manager is potentially cheaper than other solutions.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"BeyondTrust also offers better features.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Delinea is better than Symantec Privileged Access Manager in terms of security and features.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Comparing Symantec Privileged Access Manager with market leaders like CyberArk and Delinea, CyberArk is the market leader.","score":"8"}

<p>Symantec Privileged Access Manager offers robust API integration for DevOps, comprehensive access management with session recording, password management, and support for two-factor authentication like PIV and CAC. Its scalable architecture enhances security through complex password policies and frequent changes. However, users experience stability issues post-upgrade, browser compatibility problems with the Java front-end, and challenges in report generation. Since Broadcom's acquisition, users report stagnant development and declining support quality.</p>

{"quote":"The password management solution and password rotation policy using third-party certificates are easy to implement.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"The agent-based credential management solution allows clients to programmatically use the agent to collect passwords during runtime from Symantec Privileged Access Manager.","score":"9"}

I work for a service provider that implements Symantec Privileged Access Manager for banking and mining clients. We find its credential management valuable, but it lags behind CyberArk, Delinea, and BeyondTrust in security and features.

Many reported not using a previous system before Symantec Privileged Access Manager. Some explored alternatives like CA PAM, Xceedium, or OpenVPN. A few compared past experiences with ERPM or IBM, emphasizing ease of deployment. Others tried shared components, while some considered, but never adopted, CyberArk. The decision was partly influenced by bid opportunities for affordability and fast implementation. Experiences varied, with existing gaps prompting the need for effective credential management and access control.

<p>Symantec Privileged Access Manager surpasses its competitors by offering advanced security protocols, seamless integration capabilities, and real-time monitoring, ensuring superior control and protection of sensitive data across various platforms.</p>

Symantec Privileged Access Manager's pricing involves a mix of device and user-based licensing models, with options for monthly or yearly agreements. While not the cheapest, it is often considered cost-effective compared to competitors. Long-term planning can provide savings, and discounts may be available through negotiation. Infrastructure and training costs should be anticipated. Potential additional expenses include session recording, storage, and a Terminal Server. Enterprises should evaluate architecture needs before purchase.

<p> Users experience stability issues after each patch upgrade, which needs drastic improvement. </p><p> The setup is complex, and the management console could benefit from enhancements. </p><p> The service account management lacks support for application pools, SQL databases, and PowerShell scripts. </p><p> Technical support has declined since Broadcom's acquisition, with longer response times. </p><p> There is a need to extend the functionality to include features like cloud-based and VPN-less access for a hybrid environment. </p>

<p>Symantec Privileged Access Manager offers robust API integrations which facilitate low maintenance costs and enhanced security automation across development and operational environments.</p>
<p>Its password management and session recording features are simple to deploy and use, promoting operational efficiency right out-of-the-box.</p>
<p>Support for two-factor authentication including PIV and CAC stands out, enhancing security for sensitive access points.</p>
<p>Symantec Privileged Access Manager provides comprehensive visibility into server access permissions, ensuring users have appropriate access levels.</p>
<p>Its scalability is highlighted by its capacity to manage numerous concurrent sessions, support a high number of devices and accounts, and function effectively across a distributed architecture.</p>

Initial setup of Symantec Privileged Access Manager was generally straightforward for many. Some described simple installation, but highlighted complexities in configuration and internal processes, including networking and change control approval. Challenges arose from infrastructure intricacies or lack of familiarity, often needing assistance from CA or resellers. Virtual appliance deployment was praised as easy, but some faced issues with Java dependencies affecting accessibility. Despite occasional complexities, many found installation manageable with appropriate guidance.

Symantec Privileged Access Manager's support receives mixed feedback. Several clients report responsive and helpful assistance, with some viewing technical support as good, while others express frustrations due to long response times and limited expertise. Support is perceived as having improved but still faces challenges. Some clients note difficulty obtaining higher-level assistance or timely responses, especially during critical issues. Transitioning from CA to Broadcom has affected clients' experiences, leading to varied ratings from users.

Users advise others to conduct a thorough proof of concept for Symantec Privileged Access Manager and ensure sufficient training. Engaging professionals for deployment is recommended. Verify hardware and software redundancy to avoid user impact. Consider integrating new cloud-based options and evaluate the interface and discovery features. Planning around network requirements prior to installation is essential. Ensure vendor support is strong for ongoing assistance. Assess technical compatibility with existing systems and conduct a full stress test before implementation.

Most users favor deploying Symantec Privileged Access Manager on-premises. A minority opts for the hybrid cloud option.

Symantec Privileged Access Manager has been largely stable for many. Users highlight its maturity and reliability, with few experiencing stability issues. Some note initial challenges or occasional problems following updates, but these are often resolved with support. Many describe it as stable, performant, and reliable, particularly in clustered environments. Despite minor concerns with certain features, a majority report no stability issues, appreciating its reliable performance and scalability in both physical and virtual deployments.

Symantec Privileged Access Manager's areas needing enhancement include reporting, rule management, and multi-tenancy capabilities. Users face challenges with the interface, clunky account discovery, limited integration options, and insufficient documentation. The cost increases with scaling, and licensing models need reevaluation. There are issues with session recording, live session monitoring, and support for various integration platforms. Users also experience difficulties with updates, user interface complexity, and limited logging capabilities. Improvements in support response times are required.

Symantec Privileged Access Manager provides centralized management of administrative accounts, session recording, transparent login, automated authentication, and password management. It integrates seamlessly with Active Directory and API systems, offers high security and reliability, eases user management, and prevents credential sharing. Notable features include vaulting of credentials, network security, load balancing, and policy control to limit unauthorized access. Its ease of use and integration capabilities are appreciated by users.

People have interacted with Symantec Privileged Access Manager for periods ranging from four months to approximately twelve years.

Organizations primarily use Symantec Privileged Access Manager for managing privileged access and controlling administrator accounts. It provides two-factor authentication, session management, and session recording. It's essential for managing data centers, reducing viral attacks, and securing passwords. Enterprises, particularly in financial sectors, use it for managing Linux and Windows passwords, administering privileged accounts across servers, networks, and applications, and enhancing security with CA strong authentication integration.

Many users find Symantec Privileged Access Manager scalable due to its architecture, supporting large organizations and multiple data centers. While some mention no issues, others encountered challenges related to active directory integration and credential management synchronization. Suggestions like breaking job groups were proposed for better handling. Easy addition and removal of appliances are noted for expanding capabilities. Some performance issues with virtual servers led to purchasing hardware to improve efficiency.

Users evaluated various options including CA, BeyondTrust, IBM, CyberArk, Thycotic Secret Server, Centrify, ManageEngine, Dell, and Hitachi ID. Internal needs, regulatory requirements, and ease of installation were key factors. CA and CyberArk were frequently compared, with CA noted for ease of use. BeyondTrust was mentioned for its size and features. Some users expressed no choice in evaluating other options, highlighting mandates or internal directives. Xceedium stood out for some prior to CA's acquisition.

Symantec Privileged Access Manager enhances security with strong access control, simplifies audits, and centralizes password management. It supports improved governance, reduces service issues, and streamlines provisioning. Companies benefit from automatic authentication, reduced exposure of sensitive credentials, and monitoring of privileged access. It aids in deploying secure environments, offers session recording for accountability, and integrates with identity management systems. Organizations appreciate the ease of managing deployments and the increased confidence in handling outsourced management.

Users compared Pega Platform to alternatives, favoring it for customization and integration, but some preferred others for cost and usability.

Users considered Appian BPM, Activiti BPM, IBM BPM, Camunda, Oracle BPM, Salesforce, SAP BPM, WaveMaker, UiPath, WorkFusion, Kofax, Blue Prism, Automation Anywhere, TIBCO, KISSFLOW, and OutSystems while evaluating alternatives to Pega Platform. They found Pega's superior features, flexibility, and ability to handle complex needs appealing. Although Appian and some others were compared, Pega excelled in providing integrated and cost-effective solutions, especially for larger enterprises.

Users evaluated various HR solutions but often chose SAP HCM for integration, despite considering cost and functionality alternatives.

Users considered various options, including PeopleSoft, Workday, and Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM. Many leaned towards SuccessFactors for its user-friendliness and rapid advanced modules. Some explored integration with Odoo due to ease of use. Organizations mentioned Oracle as cost-effective with straightforward report customization. Many stayed loyal to SAP HCM for its comprehensive integration capabilities, while some evaluated Workday's improved features. Resourcelink and Agresso were also mentioned among alternatives considered.

Users chose Check Point NGFW for its cost-effectiveness, superior support, advanced features, ease of use, and robust threat prevention.

Users considered other firewalls like Cisco Firewalls, Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet FortiGate, and SonicWall. Cisco was found to be simple but less feature-rich as Check Point NGFW. Palo Alto was seen as expensive, while Fortinet offered better pricing. Check Point's ease of use, cost-benefit, and strong local support were key advantages. Users preferred Check Point's comprehensive central management and security features, leading many to choose it despite considering competitors like Juniper and WatchGuard.

Users chose Mirantis Container Cloud for its enterprise capabilities over Docker, Kubernetes, and OpenShift for large-scale management.

Users considered alternatives like Docker and VMware before choosing Mirantis Container Cloud. Docker's popularity and ease influenced many decisions, but OpenShift from Red Hat and Kubernetes were also evaluated for their comprehensive features. Some users initially used Vagrant and other VM-based solutions like Hyper-V, Amazon, and Rackspace. Ultimately, migration trends to Kubernetes and Docker Swarm integration due to Docker's acquisition impacted their selection, favoring container-based environments over traditional methods.

Users chose Symantec Privileged Access Manager for its usability, performance, and support for Windows and Linux environments.

Users considered alternatives like IBM, CyberArk, BeyondTrust, Thycotic Secret Server, ManageEngine, and Xceedium. They focused on requirements such as integration, usability, regulatory compliance, and cost. Despite testing several options, users often chose CA PAM for its simplicity, performance, and comprehensive features. Elements like direct customer needs, audit necessities, and overall security enhancements significantly influenced decisions. Symantec Privileged Access Manager, formerly Xceedium, eventually emerged as a preferred choice, taking precedent over existing offerings.

Companies opted for Documentum over other systems for its robust capabilities, addressing integration and security challenges effectively.

{"quote":"In terms of stability, database connections could be improved.","quality_score":"6","sentiment_score":"4"}

{"quote":"When talking about scalability, the ability to scale and expand is eight out of ten.","quality_score":"5","sentiment_score":"6"}

{"quote":"Our team comprised of four people handled the setup.","quality_score":"6","sentiment_score":"7"}

3.5

Teams implemented OpenText Documentum through vendor, third-party, and internal strategies, with team sizes and deployment methods varying significantly.