We performed a comparison between BMC TrueSight Network Automation and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Configuration Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We can securely manage both company-owned devices and personal devices enrolled in our BYOD program."
"It's normally able to meet 100% expectations of our customers."
"We have a BYOD policy, and this solution helps us manage our devices."
"It provides control over all mobile devices that are being connected to the corporate network."
"The solution is scalable. We currently have tens of thousands of users within our organization using the solution."
"Mobile device management is most valuable."
"There is a single pane of glass for user access and a single sign-on facility for the user. If you have already logged in to Microsoft Azure or on-premises, you can redirect directly to Microsoft Endpoint Manager, monitor all your security threats, and analyze the data associated with the application in a single, unified way."
"It is very easy to use. It has a very easy interface."
"We use it to back up configurations so the configuration management is valuable for us."
"The compliance management, patching, and OS upgrades are useful features."
"It is helpful if you schedule daily or weekly archiving for your config groups. Then, you can go by what are in those configuration groups, before and after, if you make changes. So, configuration management is really helpful in network management."
"The log audit and historical configurations are the most valuable feature."
"The backup and restore configurations are really helpful for a number of network devices, as you can automate them, then know what changes have been done, who made the changes, etc. So, it's quite helpful in the network management area."
"It has the best automation features."
"Depending on who's looking at the data, they need to configure that data in different ways, and the dashboards help us to do that better than what was previously available."
"This product has helped us because we can now do many tasks at once. Rather than copy one file to one device, we can do an entire group at one time."
"Ansible provides great reliability when coupled with a versioning system (git). It helps providing predictability to the network by knowing exactly what's being pushed after validating it in production."
"It was easy to read and learn. It is a YAML-based syntax, which makes it easily understand and pick up."
"There are new modules available, which help to simplify the workflow. That is what we like about it."
"One of the most valuable features is that Ansible is agentless. It does not have dependencies, other than Python, which is very generic in terms of dependencies for all systems and for any environment. Being agentless, Ansible is very convenient for everything."
"The most valuable features of the solution are automation and patching."
"The initial setup is easy and takes a few hours to complete."
"The API for exposing all our infrastructure services is the most valuable feature."
"The automation manager is very good."
"There are a few security features that are not available in Microsoft Intune, when compared to other products."
"Having a dedicated configuration server that assists in modifying the configuration service, and creating personalized structures, interfaces, and web services could enhance usability."
"An area for improvement is the absence of seamless integration, particularly with external dashboards."
"It should be simplified. I've worked with many different mobile device management solutions, and Intune is one of the more complex ones. It could be more simplified, and some of it is related to the wording that is being used, such as a configuration profile versus a policy. They really should have had different names to make it less confusing."
"Integrating certain group policies can be challenging and may necessitate using on-premises systems to integrate them with Microsoft Intune."
"One big problem with Microsoft is that they're changing the names of the products quite often, or they're quite consistently doing so. Intune is now Endpoint administration. Constantly switching the user interface or the administrative interface makes it quite hard to keep pace. If you are on a two-week holiday and you come back and look at the same screen you have looked at for the last couple of months, it looks different, which is annoying. Changing things around all the time doesn't make it easy."
"There can be delays in the deployment of new policies."
"In terms of what can be improved, I am looking for better enhancements regarding Apple management, not only on the mobile device, but also on the laptop."
"I'd like to be able to get more devices into compliance with standards, but that means running additional rule sets and that takes time."
"It is tedious to scale the solution."
"I would like to see more device supported features, mostly on the new brands and models coming in. For any new version or model, it should be supported by the tool, especially the newest versions. For example, the newest devices, like Aruba Wireless, and routers need support from the tool."
"We've been working with BMC support in various ways such as to allow for the high-availability components to the TSIMs to work together. There have been issues there. We've seen randomness in how other pieces of the software work. Integration with the Presentation Server and the TSIMs has been a challenge. The ports that are required for HA to be utilized were not clearly documented anywhere. In fact, they still aren't documented online anywhere, even though we managed to pull it out of some of their support people."
"BMC TrueSight Network Automation can improve by having a better UI. The overall quality of the UI could be better."
"I believe there could be new features in terms of the latest technology."
"For customized compliance, it takes some effort to implement things. If the device configuration is quite complex, then you have to do quite number of customizations in the DNA tool for out-of-the-box compliance. These regular expressions have to be modified based on the requirements of the compliance."
"They need to have a single sign-on."
"The scalability of the solution has some shortcomings."
"In Community, there's a lot of effort towards testing, standardizing, and testing for module development to role development, which is why Molecule is now becoming real. Same thing with Zuul, which we are starting to implement. Zulu tests out modules from third-party sources, like ourselves, and verifies that the modules work before they are committed to the code. Currently, Ansible can't do this with all the modules out there."
"Ansible is great, but there are not many modules. You can do about 80% to 90% of things by using commands, but more modules should be added. We cannot do some of the things in Ansible. In Red Hat, we have the YUM package manager, and there are certain options that we can pass through YUM. To install the Docker Community Edition, I'll write the yum install docker-ce command, but because the Docker Community Edition is not compatible with RHEL 8, I will have to use the nobest option, such as yum install docker-ce --nobest. The nobest option installs the most stable version that can be installed on a particular system. In Ansible, the nobest option is not there. So, it needs some improvements in terms of options. There should be more options, keywords, and modules."
"There needs to be improvement in the orchestration."
"There is always room for improvement in features or customer support."
"The solution should add a nice self-service portal."
"Because Ansible is establishing SSH sessions to perform tasks, there is a limit on scalability."
"On the Dashboard, when you view a template run, it shows all the output. There is a search filter, but it would be nice to able to select one server in that run and then see all that output from just that one server, instead of having to do the search on that one server and find the results."
More BMC TrueSight Network Automation Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
BMC TrueSight Network Automation is ranked 18th in Configuration Management with 10 reviews while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is ranked 1st in Configuration Management with 58 reviews. BMC TrueSight Network Automation is rated 7.8, while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of BMC TrueSight Network Automation writes "Helps with patching, OS upgrade, and security vulnerability management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform writes "Its agentless, making the deployment fast and easy". BMC TrueSight Network Automation is most compared with Cisco DNA Center and SolarWinds Network Configuration Manager, whereas Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is most compared with Red Hat Satellite, Microsoft Configuration Manager, VMware Aria Automation, Microsoft Azure DevOps and BMC TrueSight Server Automation. See our BMC TrueSight Network Automation vs. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform report.
See our list of best Configuration Management vendors and best Network Automation vendors.
We monitor all Configuration Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.