Softwr

Cloud · head to head

Portworx vs Zipkin

Portworx logo

Portworx

Cloud

Kubernetes-native storage and data services, priced by the node hour

From
$0.33/node hour
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Zipkin logo

Zipkin

Cloud

Distributed tracing system for microservice latency

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Only Zipkin has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: Portworx bare metal nodes are charged at 1.11 USD per node hour against 0.33 for virtual nodes, so a bare metal cluster costs more than three times a virtualised one for identical capability.; Zipkin less active development and smaller community momentum than Jaeger
  • They diverge on capability: Portworx covers Container-native volumes, Zipkin covers Trace collection and search.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Portworx and Zipkin actually diverge.

Attributes where Portworx and Zipkin differ
AttributePortworxZipkin
Starting price$0.33/node hourFree
Pricing modelPer node hourOpen source, no licence fee
Free tierNoYes
PlatformsLinuxLinux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted

Identical on both: user rating (Not yet rated), category (Cloud).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Portworx

  • Container-native volumes
  • Failure domain placement
  • Volume encryption
  • Database automation
  • Disaster recovery
  • Autopilot capacity management
  • Hardware independence

Only in Zipkin

  • Trace collection and search
  • Dependency diagram
  • Simple deployment
  • Pluggable storage

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Portworx

  • Running a production PostgreSQL or Cassandra cluster on Kubernetes and needing the data to survive node lossnot Zipkin
  • A platform team offering self-service databases to developers on an internal Kubernetes platformnot Zipkin
  • Failing over stateful applications between clusters in different regions as a disaster recovery positionnot Zipkin
  • An OpenShift estate where the built-in storage option does not meet the availability requirement for stateful setsnot Zipkin

Zipkin

  • Adding distributed tracing quickly without standing up heavy infrastructurenot Portworx
  • Java and Spring Boot estates, where instrumentation support is long-establishednot Portworx
  • Small deployments where Jaeger is more than the problem requiresnot Portworx

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Portworx

  • Bare metal nodes are charged at 1.11 USD per node hour against 0.33 for virtual nodes, so a bare metal cluster costs more than three times a virtualised one for identical capability.
  • A 1,000 node hour monthly minimum applies, which means small or intermittent clusters pay for capacity they do not consume.
  • Replicating volumes across nodes consumes real capacity and network bandwidth, so the underlying infrastructure cost rises alongside the licence in a way the node hour rate does not show.
  • Pure Storage ownership means roadmap priorities are set by an array vendor, and buyers should confirm that hardware independence remains contractual rather than assumed.
  • Operating it well requires Kubernetes storage expertise, and teams that adopted Kubernetes to simplify operations often find they have added a distributed storage system to run.

Zipkin

  • Less active development and smaller community momentum than Jaeger
  • Fewer features: sampling, storage options and UI are all more limited
  • The interface is dated and slower to work with on large trace volumes
  • Tracing alone still leaves metrics and logs in separate tools during an incident

Pricing, plan by plan

Portworx

$0.33/node hour
  • Portworx Enterprise on virtual machine nodes$0.33/node hour
    • Minimum 1,000 node hours per month
    • Replicated persistent volumes
    • Encryption and disaster recovery
  • Portworx Enterprise on bare metal nodes$1.11/node hour
    • Minimum 1,000 node hours per month
    • Same capabilities on bare metal clusters
    • Higher rate reflects node density

Zipkin

Free
  • ZipkinFree
    • Full functionality
    • No usage limits
    • Community support

Which should you pick?

Choose Portworx if

  • You need container-native volumes.
  • You work on Linux.
  • You also want failure domain placement.
Portworx review

Choose Zipkin if

  • You need trace collection and search.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
  • You also want dependency diagram.
Zipkin review

Questions people ask

Is Portworx or Zipkin better?
Neither clearly leads. Portworx starts at $0.33/node hour and Zipkin at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Portworx or Zipkin?
Zipkin has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at $0.33/node hour for Portworx and Free for Zipkin.
Does Portworx or Zipkin run on more platforms?
Portworx runs on Linux. Zipkin runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
Can I use Zipkin for free?
Yes. Zipkin has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Portworx starts at $0.33/node hour.
What is Portworx best used for?
Portworx is most often used for running a production postgresql or cassandra cluster on kubernetes and needing the data to survive node loss, a platform team offering self-service databases to developers on an internal kubernetes platform, failing over stateful applications between clusters in different regions as a disaster recovery position, an openshift estate where the built-in storage option does not meet the availability requirement for stateful sets. Of those, running a production postgresql or cassandra cluster on kubernetes and needing the data to survive node loss and a platform team offering self-service databases to developers on an internal kubernetes platform are not what Zipkin is typically brought in for.
What can Portworx do that Zipkin cannot?
Portworx covers Container-native volumes, Failure domain placement, Volume encryption, Database automation. Zipkin covers Trace collection and search, Dependency diagram, Simple deployment, Pluggable storage.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Portworx: Is Portworx tied to Pure Storage hardware?

No. It runs on any Kubernetes distribution over any underlying storage, though Pure has owned it since 2020 and sets the roadmap.

Zipkin: Is Zipkin free?

Yes, open source with no licence fee.

Portworx: What does a real cluster cost?

At 0.33 USD per virtual node hour, twenty nodes running continuously is roughly 4,800 USD a month. Bare metal at 1.11 USD per node hour is around 16,000 USD for the same node count.

Zipkin: Zipkin or Jaeger?

Jaeger has more momentum, more features and CNCF backing. Zipkin is lighter and quicker to stand up, and remains well supported in the Java and Spring ecosystem.

Portworx: Is backup included?

No. Portworx Backup is a separately priced product covering Kubernetes application backup.

Zipkin: Does Zipkin work with OpenTelemetry?

Yes. OpenTelemetry can export to Zipkin, which is now the usual way to instrument for it.

Share

Related pages

More on Portworx

More on Zipkin

Keep looking

Other head to heads