Comparison
Docker vs Kubernetes
On the evidence we track, Kubernetes leads this comparison with a composite score of 76/100. Scores are only directly comparable because these tools share a category; the full breakdown and every source is below.
Capabilities
Feature-by-feature on the axes that matter for container orchestration tools. “-” means undocumented, not absent.
| Capability | Docker | Kubernetes |
|---|---|---|
| Core | ||
| Orchestration scope | Kubernetes | Kubernetes |
| Deployment | ||
| Hosting | Cloud + self-hosted | Cloud + self-hosted |
| Standards | ||
| OCI / CRI compliant | - | - |
| CNCF Certified Kubernetes conformant | - | - |
| Security | ||
| Rootless operation | - | - |
| Architecture | ||
| Daemonless architecture | - | - |
| Platform | ||
| Windows containers | - | - |
| ARM architecture support | - | - |
| Workloads | ||
| GPU scheduling | - | - |
| Stateful workloads | - | ✓ |
| Networking | ||
| Built-in networking / CNI | - | ✓ |
| Ops | ||
| Vendor-managed control plane | - | - |
| Ecosystem | ||
| CNCF maturity | - | - |
| UX | ||
| GUI dashboard | ✓ | - |
Comparison generated from independently-sourced facts. Every value links to its source and retrieval date. See the method.