Docker Alternatives: 12 Best Options in 2025, and Key Features to Look For

Docker, the container orchestration platform, has played such a major role in the widespread adoption of container technology that it can sometimes feel as if Docker and containers are synonymous.

In reality, though, Docker is just one of many modern tools and platforms that support the development, execution, and management of containers. A variety of Docker alternatives exist – and depending on your use case, they may be a better fit than Docker itself.

To that end, here’s a guide to Docker alternatives as of 2025. Below, we compare and contrast twelve popular Docker alternatives, while also offering tips on how to decide which container solution is best for you.

What is Docker?

To understand Docker alternatives, you first need to understand Docker – and that can be a bit tricky because the term Docker can mean multiple things.

Sometimes, folks say Docker refers to the entire set of container image management, execution, and orchestration tools developed as part of the Docker project. Other times, they’re referring to specific parts of the Docker platform, such as Docker Desktop (a graphical interface for Docker), Docker Hub (a public container image repository), the Docker runtime, or Docker’s orchestrator, Swarm.

This nuance matters because finding a Docker alternative requires deciding which parts of Docker, exactly, you want an alternative to – and not all alternate technologies are drop-in replacements for the complete Docker platform. For example, Kubernetes is an alternative to Docker in the sense that Kubernetes can orchestrate and manage containers. But Kubernetes doesn’t include native tooling for building container images, so it doesn’t replace that part of the Docker platform. In contrast, podman is a Docker alternative that can handle all of the core processes required to build, run, and orchestrate containers (albeit not with the same level of scalability and flexibility as Kubernetes).

For the purposes of this article, we’re interpreting the term Docker broadly. Some of the alternative tools and platforms we’ll look at are end-to-end replacements for Docker. Others are alternatives just to specific parts of Docker.

Why consider Docker alternatives?

Following its launch in 2013, Docker gained massive popularity as a solution for creating and running containerized applications. Today, it remains a powerful end-to-end container platform. It’s also open source, an attractive trait for teams that like the flexibility and transparency open source provides.

But that doesn’t make Docker the right fit for all container use cases. Some organizations may prefer alternatives to Docker because the alternatives better integrate with other tools or platforms they already use. Others may find that Docker’s technology doesn’t offer the best performance or security for their use cases. And still others may just prefer alternative tools because they find them easier to learn or work with.

Top 12 Docker alternatives in 2025

If you feel Docker may not be the right fit for you, you have plenty of other possibilities to consider. Here’s a look at twelve of the top Docker alternatives as of 2025.

1. Kubernetes and CRI-O

As the world’s most popular container orchestration platform, Kubernetes is a widely used alternative to Swarm, Docker’s native orchestration. Among the many Kubernetes benefits is that Kubernetes is more scalable than Swarm. It also enjoys a larger following, which means it’s easier to find integrations and support. And you can easily run Kubernetes on-premises or in the cloud, whereas Docker is more of an on-prem solution. Fully managed, cloud-based Docker services are rare.

However, for the purpose of actually executing containers, Kubernetes needs a container runtime – and there is no “default” runtime built into Kubernetes. Instead, Kubernetes uses any Container Runtime Interface (CRI)-compliant runtime installed on nodes. Often, that is the runtime provided by Docker. But if you want to run containers without Docker, you can pair Kubernetes with an alternative runtime, like CRI-O.

Note that Kubernetes and CRI-O don’t provide tooling for configuring or building container images. You’ll still typically need Docker for those tasks, but once your images are built, you can deploy them with Kubernetes and CRI-O instead of using Docker.

2. Podman

Podman is an open source platform that supports building, running, managing, and orchestrating containers. It can work with standards-compliant container images, and it supports Dockerfiles (the same file format that Docker uses to configure container images). This makes podman basically a drop-in replacement for Docker in all respects.

The major difference between podman and Docker is that podman aims to be even more lightweight. As a result, it can sometimes feel less feature-rich. You probably don’t want to use podman for complex container development and orchestration tasks. But if you’re looking for a simple Docker alternative that won’t hog resources, podman is an attractive choice.

3. Nerdctl

Nerdctl is a command-line tool designed to work as a complete replacement for the Docker CLI and Docker commands. In addition, nerdctl provides other features in areas like image pulling and encryption that Docker either doesn’t offer natively, or that are harder to implement using Docker.

The caveat is that nerdctl only fully supports containers designed to run with containerd. Containerd happens to be the same runtime used by Docker in most cases, though, so if you’re using Docker currently, you can probably switch to nerdctl without much issue.

4. BuildKit

BuildKit is an alternative to the parts of the Docker platform that let you build container images. It’s compatible with Dockerfiles, so you can use it to create images using the same process as you would with Docker.

The advantage of BuildKit over Docker is that it tends to be able to build images faster and more efficiently. This makes BuildKit an especially attractive Docker alternative for teams that need to create large images, or to run image builds on a frequent basis.

5. Kaniko

Kaniko is also an alternative build tool for Docker images. Its major selling point is that it works on machines where there is no Docker daemon running.

This makes Kaniko useful in situations where you need to build images on a computer or server that you don’t plan to use to run containers. For example, if you have a machine that hosts a CI/CD pipeline, and you use other servers to host your workloads in production, Kaniko can come in handy because it allows you to build container images in the CI/CD environment without having to install Docker.

6. Buildah

Buildah is very similar to Kaniko in that it’s also an alternative Docker image creation that can run without a Docker daemon present on the host machine. From a usability and feature perspective, Buildah and Kaniko are pretty comparable.

The main reason to prefer one over the other is that their performance can vary, but it depends on factors like which types of images you’re building. The best way to decide whether Buildah is the right tool for you is to experiment and see if the builds are faster than those created with an alternative like Kaniko.

7. Red Hat OpenShift

OpenShift, a platform developed by Red Hat to orchestrate and manage containers, is based on Kubernetes. That makes it more or less a Docker alternative in the same way that Kubernetes is a Docker alternative: It can serve as a substitute for Docker’s container execution and orchestration features, although it doesn’t provide native image creation tooling.

A discussion of the pros and cons of OpenShift compared to other versions of Kubernetes is beyond the scope of this article. But suffice it to say that if your organization is already invested in other Red Hat solutions, you’ll likely find OpenShift easier to integrate with your container environments and tooling.

8. Linux Containers (LXC)

Linux Containers (LXC) is a Linux-based containerization technology that predated Docker (in fact, early versions of Docker were based on LXC, although the platforms later diverged).

LXC comes with its own tooling for building and running Linux container images, making it an alternative to those parts of the Docker platform. LXC doesn’t include native orchestration features, but it can be paired with LXD, a hypervisor technology from Canonical, for that purpose.

Although LXC is arguably harder to use than Docker, and doesn’t have as large of a community following, LXC-based workloads can be more efficient in some cases. They also integrate well with Ubuntu, the Linux-based operating system developed by Canonical.

9. Rancher Desktop

Rancher Desktop is a user-friendly management interface for Kubernetes clusters that can run locally on a PC or desktop. It’s not a full-fledged Docker replacement because it doesn’t include image creation tools, but it offers a graphical user interface as an alternative to some of the functionality supported by the Docker CLI. This makes it a Docker Desktop alternative. It also offers features that aren’t available in Docker Desktop, like fine-grained control over Kubernetes.

For more on Rancher and how it fits into the Docker ecosystem, check out our article on Rancher vs. Kubernetes.

10. OrbStack

OrbStack is another platform that aims to provide a simpler, more user-friendly experience for running Docker containers. It uses Docker under the hood for container execution, but it provides its own container management tooling. It’s particularly useful for developers who want to be able to test containerized applications locally while retaining full compatibility with Docker.

11.  Apache Mesos

Mesos, an Apache open source project, is a cluster manager whose main focus is on helping to operate workloads spread across large server clusters. You can consider it a Docker alternative because one of the workload types that Mesos supports is Docker containers – so, like Kubernetes, Mesos offers a way to manage and orchestrate containers across a cluster of servers. In addition, Mesos can support other types of containerization technologies, which means you can use it to run containerized apps without relying on Docker at all.

12. runC

RunC is the container runtime that Docker uses to execute Docker containers. So, if you use Docker, you’re also using runC.

However, runC can also operate on its own, without Docker. Using the runc CLI tool, you can execute containers using syntax similar to the native Docker commands. RunC doesn’t provide native image generation or container orchestration tooling, however, so it is not an alternative to those parts of Docker.

Other Docker-related tools and technologies

Beyond the Docker replacements described above, several other tools exist that are not part of the Docker project, but that can be useful in conjunction with Docker as a way of simplifying container management:

• Helm: A package manager that streamlines application deployment and management for Kubernetes-based containerized workloads.
• Tilt: A tool to help automate the container creation and deployment process. Tilt is now part of Docker, although the Tilt tooling is still developed separately.
• Kind: A lightweight Kubernetes distribution, useful for testing containerized workloads locally.
• K3s: Another lightweight Kubernetes distribution. Developed by Rancher, K3s aims to offer all of the features of “standard” Kubernetes, while consuming fewer resources.
• Minikube: Yet another lightweight Kubernetes distribution, designed mostly for localized testing. Minikube’s main limitation is that it doesn’t directly support multi-node clusters.
• CRI: Short for Container Runtime Interface, CRI is a standardized API that Kubernetes uses to integrate with a variety of container runtimes, including but not limited to those used natively by Docker. CRI makes it easy to switch between runtimes, or use different runtimes within the same Kubernetes cluster.

Additional types of Docker replacements

Above, we categorized Docker substitutes based mainly on which parts of Docker’s functionality they were capable of replacing. However, you can also categorize Docker substitutes based on other criteria.

Open source alternatives

First, there are Docker replacements that are open source. Most of the solutions described above fall into this category because their code is freely available. Note, however, that being open source doesn’t necessarily imply that solutions are non-commercial or free of cost. Some Docker alternatives, like those from Red Hat and Rancher, have licensing fees for production enterprise use (although free-of-cost versions are typically available as well).

Lightweight tooling

Some Docker alternatives are distinguished by their focus on being lightweight and consuming fewer resources than Docker’s standard tooling. This is true of build tools like Kaniko and Buildah. It’s also the case for Docker replacements like podman.

The existence of these offerings doesn’t mean that Docker itself is resource-hungry or “heavy.” However, for use cases where resource efficiency is a top priority, Docker is not always the best fit, and a lighter-weight alternative may work better.

Full container management platforms

As we mentioned, only some Docker alternatives are full container management platforms. Others only offer certain types of functionality, like tooling to build container images or orchestration support.

Podman is probably the best example of a Docker alternative that aims to be a full container management platform. OpenShift and Rancher come close, although they rely on third-party integrations (like nerdctl in the case of Rancher) to handle tasks like image creation.

Key features to look for in a Docker alternative

Given the wide array of Docker substitutes available, finding the right solution can be tough. Obviously, the features you want to focus on will vary depending on which use cases are most important to you. But in general, consider capabilities and characteristics like the following:

• Interface types: Does the solution offer a CLI, a graphical interface, or both? Developers often prefer the CLI because it makes it easier to automate and repeat workflows, but a graphical interface can be convenient for teams who don’t want to have to master the intricacies of a CLI tool.
• Integration with CI/CD systems: How easily does the solution connect to CI/CD software? Can it support any CI/CD setup, or does it only integrate with CI/CD tools from certain vendors?
• Compatibility with OCI standards: OCI compatibility is important because most mainstream container platforms expect images to be OCI-compatible. A majority of Docker replacements conform to the OCI standards, but some of the more obscure offerings do not.
• Performance and resource usage: If performance optimization is a priority, pay attention to how much CPU and memory the solution uses. As we noted, you may want to do some experimentation to test the resource efficiency of various tools for your specific use cases.
• Platform support: Virtually all Docker alternatives run on Linux. Some also support Windows and macOS, although they often do so by creating Linux environments in virtual machines, which is not a particularly resource-efficient approach because the virtual machines consume a lot of CPU and memory. If you need to work from Windows or macOS, investigate how well the solution supports your platform, and whether it relies on virtualization or another technique (like native container runtimes) to work.

Pros and cons of a transition from Docker

We touched briefly on the reasons to migrate from Docker above. But let’s elaborate on the pros and cons of transitioning to a Docker alternative.

Pros

The main advantages of moving away from Docker include:

• Resource efficiency: Some alternatives to Docker are more lightweight, which means they consume fewer resources. This in turn means they can save money. They may also improve workload performance by leaving more resources available to your actual applications.
• User experience: Some users may find Docker replacements to provide a better user experience. User experience is subjective, of course, but teams that like the ability to automate workflows or work through graphical interfaces may find Docker’s native tooling to be limited.
• Tailored options: Certain alternatives to Docker cater to specific environments or integrate particularly well with certain vendor ecosystems. If you already use Red Hat’s Linux platforms, for example, you may also find it easier to deploy containers with OpenShift than with Docker.

Cons

On the other hand, transitioning from Docker can present some challenges and drawbacks:

• Learning curve: Obviously, you’ll need to learn new tools. Learning Docker alternatives is relatively easy in cases where the tools, like nerdctl, mimic Docker’s syntax and concepts. It can be more challenging for solutions like Mesos, which use very different paradigms and tools.
• Compatibility challenges: Some Docker alternatives won’t work with certain platforms or configurations. For example, LXC can only run containers on Linux hosts, which is a problem for teams that need to deploy apps for Windows.
• Changing support status: There is always a risk that developers will cease building or supporting Docker alternatives. This is especially true for smaller, more obscure projects. Docker itself could be discontinued as well, of course, as could any software project. But because it’s a prominent, widely used platform, it’s less likely to disappear with little warning.

How to switch from Docker to another tool

If you’ve decided to migrate to a Docker alternative, you’ll want to work through these steps to make the process smooth:

1. Identify dependencies: First, make an inventory of all applications and workflows that depend on Docker. This is important because you need to know where, exactly, you’ll be substituting in a different tool, and what is at risk of breaking if the migration doesn’t go smoothly.
2. Test the tool: Before deploying an alternative tool into production, test it first. Ideally, your testing will use copies of the same environment and configurations as your production workloads, but in a testing setup where you can afford to make mistakes without disrupting critical business processes.
3. Modify tools and scripts: After validating the new solution, update your tools and scripts to rely on it instead of Docker.
4. Monitor post-migration: Be sure to monitor workflows after putting the Docker alternative in place so you can catch issues you may not have anticipated, like commands that result in errors or operations that take longer than they should.

Integrating Docker alternatives with groundcover

Migrating to a Docker alternative can be tough. But if you use groundcover for monitoring and observability, you don’t need to worry about overhauling this part of your stack. That’s because groundcover can monitor any type of infrastructure or application – including but not limited to those built and deployed using Docker.

groundcover does this thanks to its unique, eBPF-based monitoring architecture, which allows us to collect insights of all types. Unlike other observability solutions, we don’t rely on traditional software agents or frameworks (like OpenTelemetry) that only work with certain types of applications, platforms or environments. No matter what you toss at groundcover, we can monitor and observe it in ways that empower teams to get ahead of performance issues proactively.