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."It is very extensible. There are many plugins and modules out there that everybody helps create to interact with different cloud providers as well."
"We can manage all the configuration consistency between all our servers."
"Ansible Tower offers use a UI where we can see all the pushes that have gone into the server."
"There are new modules available, which help to simplify the workflow. That is what we like about it."
"The Organizations feature, where I can give clear silos and hand them over to different teams, that's amazing; everybody says that it's their own Tower. It's like they have their own Tower out there."
"I like the agentless feature. This means we don't install any agent in worker nodes."
"The automation manager is very good."
"Ansible Galaxy is helpful for roles and Git Submodules: No dependency in managing playbooks. Also, fact caching in redis for host/role grp information speeds up execution. Finally, variable management is easy."
"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 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."
"The stability is good. I haven't experienced any issues."
"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 must be made easier to configure."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is slightly expensive, and its pricing could be improved."
"It could be easier to integrate Ansible with other solutions. No single tool can do everything. For example, we use Terraform for infrastructure and other solutions for configuration management and VMs."
"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."
"I have seen indications that the documentation needs improvement. They are providing a "How to Improve Your Documentation" presentation at this conference."
"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 see more reporting for container architecture."
"I would like to have the agent up and running at all times, as opposed to only while it is in the DevOps pipeline."
"The interface allows access in a number of ways but that can be confusing."
"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 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.