Developed by UCLA, SDSC, and TACC
OneSciencePlace builds on the rich legacy of many research computing platforms — each successful in its own right. Comparing them is not straightforward; capabilities overlap, scope varies, and much depends on use case and context. Yet it is a question institutions and research teams reasonably ask. The comparison matrix below is a concise attempt to surface the practical differences that matter.
OneSciencePlace incorporates contributions from developers of several platforms listed here and builds on lessons learned from their design and operation, including HUBzero, CIPRES, Apache Airavata, and Tapis.
Before reading the comparison
Each platform brings distinctive strengths: HUBzero pioneered content-rich research environments with integrated tools and metrics; Open OnDemand established mature browser-based access to single-site HPC; JupyterHub is the de-facto interactive computing infrastructure for research and education, with 2i2c reducing the operational burden through managed delivery; Tapis and Apache Airavata advanced multi-tenant API-driven compute and data orchestration; CyVerse pioneered data-centric workflow analysis at scale; Galaxy made visual workflow composition accessible to life sciences communities; CIPRES demonstrated the long-term impact of domain-specific gateways. OneSciencePlace draws on this broader landscape — composing complementary strengths from across it into a single, scalable framework.
- Capabilities reflect typical deployments and selected planned items.
- The matrix compares platforms across five categories to provide a broader view of relative strengths and tradeoffs.
- Trend signals are based on development activity, adoption, and community presence — not marketing claims.
- OneSciencePlace is highlighted in each table as the reference point for the comparison.
Section 1
Platform characteristics
✓ Supported ~ Partial / limited — Not supported ★ Category leader
| Platform | Managed service | Extensible | Origin | Tech stack | Trend | Dev overhead |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OneSciencePlace | ✓ | ✓ | 2022 | PHP, Drupal | New, Active | Low ★ |
| Open OnDemand | — | ✓ | 2017 | Ruby, Node | Active | Medium |
| JupyterHub | — | ✓ | 2015 | Python, Kubernetes | Active | High |
| Tapis (used by OSP) | ✓ | ✓ | 2013 | Java, Python, Kubernetes | Stable | High |
| CyVerse | ✓ | — | 2008 | Java, iRODS | Stable | Medium |
| Galaxy | ✓ | ✓ | 2005 | Python | Stable | Medium |
| CIPRES | ~ | — | 2005 | Java | Legacy | High |
| HUBzero | ✓ | ~ | 2006 | PHP, Joomla fork | Legacy | High |
| Apache Airavata | ✓ | ~ | 2011 | Java, Python | Stable | High |
| 2i2c | ✓ | ~ | 2019 | JupyterHub, Kubernetes | New, Active | Medium |
Notes
- "Managed service" indicates a multi-tenant offering operated by the platform team or a designated provider — as distinct from open-source code that each institution deploys and operates individually.
- Most platforms in this matrix are open source. CyVerse is the primary exception (closed-source platform built on open foundations). OneSciencePlace's open-source distribution is planned, with proposal funding under review — see the Open Source page for details.
- OneSciencePlace's low development overhead is its most distinctive characteristic in this section — most comparable platforms require significant custom engineering to deploy and maintain.
- Open OnDemand and JupyterHub have strong adoption trends but require self-hosting and ongoing institutional engineering investment.
- 2i2c offers a managed JupyterHub model but is narrower in scope, focused on interactive computing rather than full gateway or repository capabilities.
Section 2
User-facing features
✓ Supported ~ Partial / limited — Not supported ★ Category leader
| Platform | UI | Workflows | FAIR Publishing | User-contributed apps | Low / no-code |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OneSciencePlace | ✓ | ~planned | ✓ ★ | ✓ ★ | ✓ ★ |
| Open OnDemand | ✓ | — | — | — | — |
| JupyterHub | ✓ | — | — | ~ | — |
| Tapis (used by OSP) | — | ✓ ★ | — | ✓ ★ | — |
| CyVerse | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ ★ | ✓ ★ | ~ |
| Galaxy | ✓ | ✓ ★ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ |
| CIPRES | ✓ | — | — | — | — |
| HUBzero | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| Apache Airavata | ~ | ~ | — | ~ | ~ |
| 2i2c | ✓ | — | — | ~ | ~ |
Notes
- OneSciencePlace leads on low/no-code UI building — no comparable platform offers this capability out of the box without custom development.
- OneSciencePlace leads on FAIR publishing as an integrated capability — most platforms require separate repository infrastructure.
- Open OnDemand provides a mature, widely adopted UI for single-site HPC job submission. It excels in that context but does not extend to multi-system federation, publishing, or no-code application delivery. Institutions outgrowing a single-site model or needing publishing and data sharing alongside compute access will find OneSciencePlace's broader scope relevant even for initial deployments.
- CyVerse, Tapis, and OneSciencePlace all support user-contributed apps as a strong capability, each with a different model. CyVerse operates a single global catalog shared across all users. Tapis provides a programmatic API layer for contributing and sharing apps across connected systems. OneSciencePlace supports user-contributed apps and systems per tenant, giving each community control over what is shared within their own environment without cross-community exposure. The right model depends on whether your community wants a global shared pool, a programmatic API approach, or a curated per-deployment catalog.
- Tapis and Galaxy are both workflow leaders in different styles — Tapis for programmatic, API-driven multi-tenant orchestration; Galaxy for visual, no-code workflow composition. OneSciencePlace's workflow support is planned — this is a current gap relative to both.
- OneSciencePlace is the only multi-tenant platform in this comparison where each tenant community can independently contribute and share their own apps and compute systems — enabling grassroots innovation within institutional or domain-specific boundaries rather than a single global pool.
Section 3
Application runtime capabilities
✓ Supported ~ Partial / limited — Not supported ★ Category leader
| Platform | Web apps | GUI / VNC | Parallel (MPI) | Distributed | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OneSciencePlace | ✓ | ✓ ★ | ✓ ★ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Open OnDemand | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| JupyterHub | ✓ | — | — | — | ✓ |
| Tapis (used by OSP) | — | — | ✓ ★ | ✓ ★ | ✓ |
| CyVerse | ✓ | ~ | ~ | — | ✓ |
| Galaxy | ~ | — | ~ | ~ | ✓ |
| CIPRES | — | — | ✓ | — | ✓ |
| HUBzero | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ |
| Apache Airavata | — | — | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 2i2c | ✓ | ~ | ~ | — | ✓ |
Notes
- OneSciencePlace leads on GUI app delivery flexibility — it is agnostic to the display technology inside the container, proxying any GUI application to the browser as long as the container exposes an appropriate display endpoint. Any Linux GUI application can be delivered without platform-specific integration work.
- Open OnDemand has the widest single-site deployment base for GUI apps but is more prescriptive about supported display technologies and requires more custom configuration for non-standard GUI applications.
- Tapis leads on MPI and distributed computing. OneSciencePlace inherits this capability through its Tapis integration and adds job cloning and restart support.
- OneSciencePlace leads on the breadth of web app delivery combined with container flexibility across runtime types.
Section 4
System integration
✓ Supported ~ Partial / limited — Not supported ★ Category leader
| Platform | Local HPC | Remote / multi-site HPC | Cloud (AWS / GCP / Azure) | Multi-system federation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OneSciencePlace | ✓ | ✓ ★ | ✓ | ✓ ★ |
| Open OnDemand | ✓ ★ | —single site | ~ | — |
| JupyterHub | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ |
| Tapis (used by OSP) | ✓ | ✓ ★ | ✓ | ✓ ★ |
| CyVerse | —hosted only | — | ~ | — |
| Galaxy | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ |
| CIPRES | —hosted only | — | — | — |
| HUBzero | ~ | ~ | — | — |
| Apache Airavata | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 2i2c | — | — | ✓ ★ | ~ |
Notes
- Open OnDemand leads on local HPC portal maturity — it is the most widely deployed solution for single-site campus clusters and has the largest institutional adoption base.
- OneSciencePlace's most significant system integration differentiator is multi-system federation — a single OneSciencePlace instance can connect local clusters, national HPC resources (such as ACCESS and NAIRR systems), cloud instances, and standalone servers simultaneously, all accessible through one interface and one login.
- 2i2c and JupyterHub lead on cloud-native deployments — they are purpose-built for cloud environments.
- OneSciencePlace and Tapis lead on multi-site federation. Connecting multiple national or institutional HPC resources under a single access point is OneSciencePlace's strongest system integration differentiator.
Section 5
Identity, access, and security
✓ Supported ~ Partial / limited — Not supported ★ Category leader
| Platform | Federated identity | LDAP | RBAC | MFA | Per-system identity mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OneSciencePlace | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ ★ |
| Open OnDemand | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| JupyterHub | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | — |
| Tapis (used by OSP) | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ |
| CyVerse | ✓ | — | ~ | ~ | — |
| Galaxy | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | — |
| CIPRES | — | — | — | — | — |
| HUBzero | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | — | — |
| Apache Airavata | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ |
| 2i2c | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | — |
Notes
- OneSciencePlace leads on federated identity breadth, supporting CILogon, Globus Auth, InCommon, SAML, LDAP, and per-system identity mapping without requiring a shared identity provider across systems.
- Per-system identity mapping is a significant operational advantage for multi-institutional deployments where users authenticate differently across connected systems.
Want to discuss how OSP compares for your specific use case?
Talk with the OSP team about your evaluation criteria, current platform, or specific requirements.