We performed a comparison between OpenText ZENworks Configuration Management 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."I believe that the solution is actually in Gartner's top quadrant at the moment for mobile device management."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the policy CSPs."
"The performance of Microsoft Intune is good."
"It has helped with compliance. It has helped to ensure that devices comply with the organization's policy. If they are not compliant and secure, they cannot access the resources."
"It is a helpful tool to manage BYOD policies."
"Users can make screenshots, and devices only need the minimal version of iOS."
"The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult."
"The most valuable feature is the impact analysis."
"Helps me perform changes in connected infrastructure thanks to the discovery features."
"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."
"Some colleagues and other companies use it and comment that it is easy to use, easy to understand, and offers good features."
"One of the most valuable features is automation. We are doing automation infrastructure, which allows us to automate regular tasks. This solution provides us with a service catalog, like building new services and automating daily tasks."
"The API for exposing all our infrastructure services is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is capable of integrating with many applications and devices in comparison to BigFix."
"We can automate a few host configurations using the product."
"The most valuable feature is that it is easy to build playbooks. The learning curve is not that steep."
"The solution can scale."
"I would like to see the ability to deploy custom packages as a Windows 64-bit package, as opposed to the Windows 32-bit, which is the only one available now."
"The UI is not user-friendly and has room for improvement."
"Onboarding of endpoint devices is not straightforward. The onboarding process was a little heavier than I thought it would be. That's the key improvement area. Obviously, the more control you have over the devices, the better it is."
"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."
"It's only good for a Microsoft environment."
"Reporting needs improvement."
"An issue we have run into with Microsoft Endpoint Manager is that we cannot patch third-party products like Adobe and Chrome with it."
"It would be nice to have a location tracker for the mobile device management tool. I'm not sure if it exists but hasn't been configured or if it's missing, but we've been unable to utilize the location features."
"The native UI should be simplified because it is outdated and a little bit over-complicated."
"We would like support for the post-integration of this product before cloud frameworks because right now their approach is to avoid using on-premises activities and move everything to the cloud."
"The support could be better."
"Improvements should be made in terms of execution speed, which is, I believe, the most lacking feature. Aside from that, re-triggering a failed task is another useful feature."
"For a couple of the API integrations, there has been a lack of documentation."
"It should support more integration with different products."
"It is a little slow on the network side because every time you call a module, it's initiating an SSH or an API call to a network device, and it just slows things down."
"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."
"The solution is slightly expensive, and its pricing could be improved."
More OpenText ZENworks Configuration Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
OpenText ZENworks Configuration Management is ranked 20th in Configuration Management while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is ranked 1st in Configuration Management with 62 reviews. OpenText ZENworks Configuration Management is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of OpenText ZENworks Configuration Management writes "It allows us to deploy applications and primitive desktops globally. The upgrade cycle is very long". 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". OpenText ZENworks Configuration Management is most compared with Microsoft 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 OpenText ZENworks Configuration Management vs. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform report.
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.