We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and UrbanCode Deploy based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Release Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Installing it is a PIP command. So, it's pretty easy. It is a one liner."
"The user interface is well-built and very easy to navigate around."
"It increases our company's efficiency, automating all the simple tasks which used to take hours of somebody's time."
"I like being able to control multiple systems and push out updates quickly with just a couple of clicks of a button and commands. I like the automation because it is a time saver."
"Its checking and validating ensures our packages are properly patched."
"I like the agentless feature. This means we don't install any agent in worker nodes."
"It was easy to read and learn. It is a YAML-based syntax, which makes it easily understand and pick up."
"It has an easy-to-use interface. It is REST API driven, and it integrates with Active Directory. It provides the ability to grant permissions to other users who would not necessarily have those permissions via the GUI so that they could run other people's jobs. For example, you could have the Oracle team grant permissions to the Linux team so that they can use each of those playbooks or each other's code. It is called shift-left."
"The stability is good. I haven't experienced any issues."
"The most valuable feature is the snapshot functionality, which allows us to access previous versions of the artifacts."
"The solution handles complex deployments very efficiently."
"Stable solution that's good for automating the CI/CD pipeline: from development to production."
"It is very easy to make a software release. It used to take us at least a couple of hours to make a release, now we went to production with a new one last night. This new release took me five minutes."
"The most valuable functionality is the ability to define the deployment process, schedule the deployment and automatically execute the deployments to different environments."
"The solution should add a nice self-service portal."
"The product could do a better job at building infrastructure."
"It can use some more credential types. I've found that when I go looking for a certain credential type, such as private keys, they're not really there."
"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."
"What I would like to see is a refined Dashboard to see, when I log in: Here are all my jobs, here are how many times they've executed; some kind graphical stitching-together of the workflows and jobs, and how they're connected. Also, those "failed hosts," what does that mean? We have a problem, a failed host can be anything. Is SSH the reason it failed? Is the job template why it failed? It doesn't really distinguish that."
"What we need is model-driven, declarative software infrastructure management. However, things tend to break with new versions, requiring a lot of work to fix…The focus should be on improving the support for Ansible in the area of AI coding."
"The documentation for the installation step of deployment, OpenStack, etc., and these things have to be a bit more detailed."
"One problem that I'm facing right now is the mismatch between the new version of Python and Ansible. Sometimes it's Python 2, and sometimes it's Python 3. When things get a bit dicey, I wish that Ansible would solve this issue by itself. I don't want to have to specify if it is Python 3 or version 2."
"I certainly would like to have a better way to pass information between deployment steps using UrbanCode Deploy because that's really difficult to do."
"The interface allows access in a number of ways but that can be confusing."
"The scalability of this application needs improvement. Changes and variations in the application become bottlenecks as they need to be more seamless and comfortable."
"I would like to have the agent up and running at all times, as opposed to only while it is in the DevOps pipeline."
"I would like to see more reporting for container architecture."
"The technical support of the solution could definitely be improved as PMRs take long to resolve."
More Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is ranked 3rd in Release Automation with 58 reviews while UrbanCode Deploy is ranked 6th in Release Automation with 27 reviews. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is rated 8.6, while UrbanCode Deploy is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform writes "Its agentless, making the deployment fast and easy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of UrbanCode Deploy writes "It offers OOTB plugins for middleware". Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is most compared with Red Hat Satellite, Microsoft Configuration Manager, VMware Aria Automation, Microsoft Azure DevOps and OpenText Operations Orchestration, whereas UrbanCode Deploy is most compared with GitLab, Microsoft Azure DevOps, HCL Launch, Octopus Deploy and BMC Release Lifecycle Management. See our Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform vs. UrbanCode Deploy report.
See our list of best Release Automation vendors.
We monitor all Release Automation 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.