We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Devops and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Overall, the two solutions are very comparable. They are both easy to deploy and they both have good features.
"We use all the DevOps features and services, like reports, Boards, Pipelines, Artifactory, etc. The interface is interactive and intuitive. The platform visuals and workflow are straightforward in Azure DevOps."
"The one thing that really stands out to me is how you can filter and how you can do your reporting and filter the tasks and everything by user."
"The most valuable features are continuous integration and deployment, and simplicity."
"Microsoft Azure DevOps integrates well with other components, such as Synapse, which is a data warehouse tool of Azure. It is a framework platform for BI and integrated with other tools, such as Power BI."
"The most valuable feature is that it brings order to our projects, and we know the status of each one at every moment."
"It is easy to use. The shared repository is useful. Everything is in one environment."
"It's got something that you won't find in other products."
"My first impression of DevOps, after using Jira, is that it has a much better, more intuitive, and more user-friendly interface."
"The solution is capable of integrating with many applications and devices in comparison to BigFix."
"On the network side, I already have a lot of our firewall related processes automated. If it's not automated all the way from the ticket system, our network team members, our tier-one guys in India, can just go into the Tower web interface and fill in a couple of survey questions."
"Ansible Tower provides a GUI, which is an enhancement, and a well-liked feature by operation teams."
"The most valuable features of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform are the agentless platform and writing the code is simple using the Yaml computer language."
"This solution allows us to stitch a lot of different parts of the workflow together."
"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."
"The initial setup is easy and takes a few hours to complete."
"Role-based access control and agentless architecture are the main features which may attract users."
"Azure DevOps could be improved with more security plugins, especially for SaaS scanning and vulnerability scans."
"Templates could be improved."
"The functions have too much dependency right now, so it makes it really, really hard to upgrade and make a change in the code."
"The solution could work to improve their reporting."
"The ability to extend work items was more flexible than it is now. Talking version control, one of our customers had some issues because they found it very difficult to manage more than 1000 repositories for one team project."
"With the query feature, we have to group items, so it becomes difficult for everyone to understand it. It's easier in JIRA, which has filters and other query options."
"Proper Gantt charting should be a feature that is included because as it is now, we have to create it ourselves."
"There are certain areas in Azure DevOps that are better in other products."
"The solution requires some Linux knowledge."
"The job workflow needs to be worked on. It's not really clear to how you actually link things together. What they probably could do is provide an example workflow on how to stitch things together. I think that would be very helpful."
"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."
"There needs to be improvement in the orchestration."
"It needs better documentation."
"The support could be better."
"From Red Hat Insights point of view, the product is not on top as it is not responding as per the demand...Like on cloud platforms, you can see the main parts of Red Hat Insights, along with the inventory of all your apps. So, that is missing in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform."
"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 →
Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 1st in Release Automation with 127 reviews while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is ranked 3rd in Release Automation with 58 reviews. Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Allows us to deploy code to production without releasing certain features immediately and agile project management capabilities offer resource-leveling". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform writes "Its agentless, making the deployment fast and easy". Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, Rally Software and Asana, whereas Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is most compared with Red Hat Satellite, Microsoft Configuration Manager, VMware Aria Automation, Microsoft Intune and BMC TrueSight Server Automation. See our Microsoft Azure DevOps vs. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 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.