If you ask five enterprises why they chose their container platform, you will get five different answers. Some selected OpenShift because they wanted vendor support. Others opted for EKS because they were already committed to AWS. A few defaulted to vanilla Kubernetes simply because it is the industry standard. The reality is that most organizations do not choose a platform based on deep technical evaluation. They pick based on familiarity, vendor relationships, or what their peers are using.
This often leads to frustration. Some companies realize they have overcomplicated their infrastructure with a platform that introduces unnecessary overhead. Others find themselves locked into a vendor ecosystem that limits their flexibility. The right container platform is not the one with the most features but the one that aligns with an organization’s operational model, cloud strategy, and skill set.
The first and most important question to ask is: how much control do you actually need? A fully managed Kubernetes service, such as EKS, AKS, or GKE, removes a significant amount of operational overhead. However, it also limits customization, which can be an issue for organizations with specialized networking, security, or compliance requirements. Platforms like OpenShift and Tanzu provide more control but introduce higher complexity and licensing costs. The trade-off is between operational simplicity and flexibility.
Another factor to consider is vendor lock-in. Cloud providers promote their Kubernetes offerings as open, but in practice, they often introduce dependencies on proprietary services for networking, storage, and identity management. This can make it difficult to move workloads across environments. If long-term portability is a priority, organizations should evaluate how tightly a platform integrates with a specific cloud provider and whether it allows easy migration to on-prem or multi-cloud setups.
Cost is another key factor, but it is not just about licensing fees. Many assume that choosing an open-source Kubernetes distribution will be the cheapest option. However, maintaining a DIY Kubernetes environment requires skilled engineers, and hiring Kubernetes specialists is expensive. The total cost of ownership includes not only software costs but also operational overhead, training, and long-term support.
The best container platform is the one that meets your team where they are. Also you need to realize that there is Kubernetes, and then there is Kubernetes.. the latter meaning the full stack of capability needed to run your workloads (storage drivers, network drivers, operators, load balancers, ingress controllers, quorum DB, underlying OS, configuration management. A full suite of capability. a Kubernetes “distribution” is simply one vendors view of how this should be assembled, but its not the only view.
Some organizations have the resources to manage Kubernetes independently and benefit from the flexibility of a self-hosted and 100% bespoke distribution. Others need a platform that reduces complexity and enables faster adoption. Before choosing a platform, enterprises should focus less on feature comparisons and more on understanding the operational realities of running and maintaining Kubernetes at scale.
Portainer as a management platform is Kubernetes distribution agnostic. We can centrally manage any Kubernetes distribution, anywhere. However, there are benefits that can be achieved through our native integration with Sidero Omni and Talos Kubernetes. If ease of use and easy of ongoing maintenance is key, then selecting a either a cloud provider managed Kubernetes service, or a service like Sidero Omni (managed by Portainer), you can dramatically reduce your day to day operational overhead.
Have a chat with us to learn how to manage ANY Kubernetes distribution, centrally, and consistently with Portainer.