We performed a comparison between Puppet Enterprise and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Microsoft, HCLTech and others in Configuration Management."While Microsoft Intune boasts a wide range of features, its user-friendliness and bundled licensing cost are key considerations for me."
"The most important thing for me is the autopilot feature."
"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."
"The ability to (somewhat) manage full Windows 10 computers including EXE-based or MSI-based application deployments using Azure Active Directory as Identity."
"The tool's most valuable feature is Autopilot."
"The ability to manage devices with different sets of policies is most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the UEM capabilities."
"Puppet Enterprise is a stable solution."
"The most valuable features are the agent, high load balancing, and overall robustness and features."
"Anything that we manage through Puppet always runs perfectly."
"Puppet Enterprise has good functionalities."
"Puppet Enterprise has reduced the time of production changes or environment changes."
"The versatility is great."
"Puppet3 and 4 series provides optimum deployment solutions for infrastructure and applications."
"The main purpose for this automation tool would be: deploying, controlling, ordering change for the system and IT Infrastructure."
"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."
"It was easy to read and learn. It is a YAML-based syntax, which makes it easily understand and pick up."
"It is very extensible. There are many plugins and modules out there that everybody helps create to interact with different cloud providers as well."
"The most valuable features of the solution are automation and patching."
"I like the agentless feature. This means we don't install any agent in worker nodes."
"It's nice to have the Dashboard where people can see it, have it report to our ELK stack. It's far more convenient, and we can trigger it with API and schedules, which is better than doing it with a whole bunch of scripts."
"We can automate a few host configurations using the product."
"It is quick to production. It has an API in the back which allows for integrations."
"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."
"It needs incorporation of Knox, ZeroTouch, etc."
"They need to add more group policies. Intune currently does not have many group policies that you can deploy. Its reporting, which is very limited at the moment, also needs improvement. It will be great if they can add report customization. Its stability needs to be improved. Sometimes, when you register a device in Intune, it doesn't show up instantly on the engine portal on the admin side. They need to provide better support for complicated issues. They also have a long turnaround time."
"There should be more focus on mobile device security and integration."
"The reporting and cost have room for improvement."
"The mobile and tablet-based versions need improvement because they are not completely user-friendly, compared to the web version. Also, data synchronization with our existing asset manager, the synchronization between multiple assets and multiple devices, takes a lot of time due to the security scanning. It should be reduced."
"Data leak prevention can be integrated into it. Currently, it does not have data leak prevention."
"Once it's configured it is unobtrusive, but it does take some hands-on to configure and deploy it properly."
"We would like Puppet to add more integration for applications."
"There's a lot of scope for enhancement on the DevSecOps side. They should definitely include features for compliance, for both the Linux and Windows side of the devices, as well as for network devices. Compliance is something they need to work on."
"Puppet Enterprise should improve the general extensibility for places where they can't install it."
"At the beginning the initial setup was kind of complex."
"The solution has really complex code, you have to understand the Ruby language. However, once you know the code then you can move ahead without any problems."
"It's a bit of a pain point to make sure that everything works once we've upgraded it because Puppet has been evolving pretty fast."
"Puppet Enterprise is more complex and difficult to configure."
"Because Ansible is establishing SSH sessions to perform tasks, there is a limit on scalability."
"It would be helpful to have templates for common configurations. It would make it much easier and faster rather than creating a whole script. The templates would decrease the learning curve as well."
"The solution requires some Linux knowledge."
"For Ansible Tower, there are three tiers with ten nodes. I would like them to expand those ten nodes to 20, because ten nodes is not enough to test on."
"The user interface on the Ansible Tower product could be better, but it is functional."
"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."
"Some of the modules in Ansible could be a bit more mature. There is still a little room for further development. Some performance aspects could be improved, perhaps in the form of parallelism within Ansible."
"We are not using the Dashboard a lot because we have higher expectations from it. The default Dashboard from Tower doesn't give that much information. We really want to get down into more than if the job succeeded or what was the percentage of success. We want to get down to task-level success. If, in a job, there are ten tasks, we want to see this task was a success, and this was not, and how many were not. That's the kind of granularity we are looking for, that Tower does not give right now."
More Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Puppet Enterprise doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Configuration Management with 12 reviews while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is ranked 1st in Configuration Management with 62 reviews. Puppet Enterprise is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Puppet Enterprise writes "A set-it-and-forget-it management solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform writes "Makes it easy to build playbooks and saves time and resources". Puppet Enterprise is most compared with AWS Systems Manager, Red Hat Satellite, Microsoft Configuration Manager, BigFix and Fortinet FortiGate Cloud, 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 list of best Configuration Management 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.