Flynn vs Kontena

Overview

Flynn

Stacks14

Followers48

Votes16

GitHub Stars7.9K

Forks592

Kontena

Stacks10

Followers36

Votes0

GitHub Stars1.5K

Forks125

Flynn vs Kontena: What are the differences?

Introduction Key differences between Flynn and Kontena focus on their deployment models, scalability, supported platforms, integrations, community support, and pricing.

Deployment Model: Flynn follows a distributed architecture where components are spread across different servers, offering increased fault tolerance and scalability. In contrast, Kontena utilizes a centralized architecture, providing a more straightforward setup for small to medium-sized applications.
Scalability: Flynn is designed for high scalability and can efficiently manage large clusters of nodes and applications. On the other hand, Kontena is more suitable for smaller-scale deployments due to its centralized architecture and may require additional setup for scaling to larger clusters.
Supported Platforms: Flynn supports a wide range of platforms, including AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud Platform, offering flexibility in deployment options. In comparison, Kontena predominantly focuses on supporting on-premise and hybrid cloud environments, catering to specific deployment preferences.
Integrations: Flynn offers extensive integrations with various tools and services, enabling seamless integration into existing development workflows. Kontena, although capable of integration, may have limited options compared to Flynn, depending on specific use cases.
Community Support: Flynn benefits from a robust community and active contributors, providing regular updates, bug fixes, and support through forums and online resources. While Kontena also has a supportive community, the level of engagement and resources may not be as extensive as Flynn's.
Pricing: Flynn offers a free open-source version with community support and enterprise editions with additional features and support options. Conversely, Kontena has a more straightforward pricing model, providing transparent subscription plans for different levels of service and support.

In Summary, Flynn and Kontena differ in deployment models, scalability, platform support, integrations, community engagement, and pricing structures.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

Flynn	Kontena
Flynn lets you deploy apps with git push and containers. Developers can deploy any app to any cluster in seconds.	Kontena is an open source container orchestration tool that makes it easy to deploy and manage containerized applications on your own servers.
Flynn goes beyond 12 factor apps. Run any Linux process written in any language or framework, even stateful apps on your own servers or any public cloud.;Scaling or adding a new cluster is simple: just add more nodes. Everything is containerized, Flynn takes care of distributing work across the cluster.;Flynn is 100% free and open source. Flynn works great out of the box, and since Flynn is modular and API-driven it's easy to modify and swap components to suit your needs.	Automatic Node Discovery;Mixed Infrastructure Support; Service Abstraction;Service Linking;Advanced Orchestration
Statistics
GitHub Stars 7.9K	GitHub Stars 1.5K
GitHub Forks 592	GitHub Forks 125
Stacks 14	Stacks 10
Followers 48	Followers 36
Votes 16	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 6 Free 5 Supports few types of containers:libvirt-lxc, docker 2 Easy setup 2 PostgreSQL HA 1 12-factor methodology	No community feedback yet
Integrations
Scala Rails Ruby Clojure Grails Java Golang Django PHP PostgreSQL	Docker Docker Machine Vagrant Microsoft Azure Weave Amazon EC2 DigitalOcean

What are some alternatives to Flynn, Kontena?

Heroku

Heroku is a cloud application platform – a new way of building and deploying web apps. Heroku lets app developers spend 100% of their time on their application code, not managing servers, deployment, ongoing operations, or scaling.

Clever Cloud

Clever Cloud is a polyglot cloud application platform. The service helps developers to build applications with many languages and services, with auto-scaling features and a true pay-as-you-go pricing model.

Google App Engine

Google has a reputation for highly reliable, high performance infrastructure. With App Engine you can take advantage of the 10 years of knowledge Google has in running massively scalable, performance driven systems. App Engine applications are easy to build, easy to maintain, and easy to scale as your traffic and data storage needs grow.

Red Hat OpenShift

OpenShift is Red Hat's Cloud Computing Platform as a Service (PaaS) offering. OpenShift is an application platform in the cloud where application developers and teams can build, test, deploy, and run their applications.

AWS Elastic Beanstalk

Once you upload your application, Elastic Beanstalk automatically handles the deployment details of capacity provisioning, load balancing, auto-scaling, and application health monitoring.

Render

Render is a unified platform to build and run all your apps and websites with free SSL, a global CDN, private networks and auto deploys from Git.

Hasura

An open source GraphQL engine that deploys instant, realtime GraphQL APIs on any Postgres database.

Cloud 66

Cloud 66 gives you everything you need to build, deploy and maintain your applications on any cloud, without the headache of dealing with "server stuff". Frameworks: Ruby on Rails, Node.js, Jamstack, Laravel, GoLang, and more.

Jelastic

Jelastic is a Multi-Cloud DevOps PaaS for ISVs, telcos, service providers and enterprises needing to speed up development, reduce cost of IT infrastructure, improve uptime and security.

Dokku

It is an extensible, open source Platform as a Service that runs on a single server of your choice. It helps you build and manage the lifecycle of applications from building to scaling.

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Flyway vs Liquibase

Flynn vs Kontena: What are the differences?

Introduction Key differences between Flynn and Kontena focus on their deployment models, scalability, supported platforms, integrations, community support, and pricing.

Deployment Model: Flynn follows a distributed architecture where components are spread across different servers, offering increased fault tolerance and scalability. In contrast, Kontena utilizes a centralized architecture, providing a more straightforward setup for small to medium-sized applications.
Scalability: Flynn is designed for high scalability and can efficiently manage large clusters of nodes and applications. On the other hand, Kontena is more suitable for smaller-scale deployments due to its centralized architecture and may require additional setup for scaling to larger clusters.
Supported Platforms: Flynn supports a wide range of platforms, including AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud Platform, offering flexibility in deployment options. In comparison, Kontena predominantly focuses on supporting on-premise and hybrid cloud environments, catering to specific deployment preferences.
Integrations: Flynn offers extensive integrations with various tools and services, enabling seamless integration into existing development workflows. Kontena, although capable of integration, may have limited options compared to Flynn, depending on specific use cases.
Community Support: Flynn benefits from a robust community and active contributors, providing regular updates, bug fixes, and support through forums and online resources. While Kontena also has a supportive community, the level of engagement and resources may not be as extensive as Flynn's.
Pricing: Flynn offers a free open-source version with community support and enterprise editions with additional features and support options. Conversely, Kontena has a more straightforward pricing model, providing transparent subscription plans for different levels of service and support.

In Summary, Flynn and Kontena differ in deployment models, scalability, platform support, integrations, community engagement, and pricing structures.