We performed a comparison between Red Hat Satellite and SaltStack 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."It works well if you have a Microsoft environment."
"The solution is stable."
"The ability to send configurations to our systems is valuable, particularly as we don't have a regular Windows AD server. Our current environment doesn't have a Windows AD, which limits our ability to push GPOs. However, this is where the solution can step in and help us push policies."
"We are a remote company, and the product helps us manage the global endpoints. It helps us natively manage the endpoints in the cloud from anywhere."
"Mobile device management is most valuable."
"Conditional access has helped us tailor and enforce our security policies in the mobile space."
"One of the main features of the solution is it allows the management of many devices in different ways."
"It provides control over all mobile devices that are being connected to the corporate network."
"Patch management is, for sure, most valuable. For license management and patch management, I would rate it a 10 out of 10."
"The compliance auditing helped me a lot."
"It cuts down significantly on the administrative time it takes to patch systems in a large environment."
"The product's most valuable feature is its ability to process patching and updates completely offline without an internet connection."
"The product allows us to handle patching for multiple servers at a time manually."
"I like the integration with other tools."
"The most valuable features of Red Hat Satellite are its support, simplicity, and patch management."
"Technical support has been good."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"SaltStack has given us the ability to deal with systems at scale and rectify issues at scale."
"The ability to programmatically describe the desired state of a single, or an entire fleet of servers, on-premises, and in a cloud environment."
"The product’s most valuable feature is its ability to provide environmental security."
"The automation functionality has been most valuable. With a click of a button, we are able to automate provisioning, the build of new hardware and apply patches. These are all extremely important and differentiated tasks that can be automated in SaltStack."
"I want to build automation that is intelligent, part of the fabric of our environment, and is somewhat self-sustaining. I think SaltStack can help me do this."
"We monitor the configurations against CIS standards. We run CIS benchmarks and maintain configurations with higher CIS values for each server."
"Intune's reporting and logging could be improved. When troubleshooting, it's difficult to collect the logs and determine what's happening. If I want to filter out the compliant devices, I can see it from the logs, but I would like the option to drill down further."
"The solution could improve its flexibility."
"The policies we had in SCCM and AD offered features that are missing from Microsoft Intune."
"Could benefit from user having more control over devices."
"It would be great if Intune offered better data protection controls for BYOD Windows PCs."
"There can be more logs. I do not have any other requirements."
"Enhancements for managing MacOS more comprehensively would be beneficial."
"It would really be helpful to have the option to manage server operating systems as well, like Windows Server, at least. That way, we could scrap the use of SCCM, which requires a lot of on-premises infrastructure."
"Red Hat Satellite's pricing needs improvement."
"It is difficult to update and maintain."
"It should basically include a complete slew of system management and monitoring tools such as Nagios. It should be a single pane of glass that gives us a complete solution. It is a good solution, but it is missing a few important things. We're using Capsule for DMVs on other secured zones. Capsule is a part of Satellite to be a proxy of sorts."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. The licensing is a bit expensive."
"The product could have more diversity in what it is able to deploy and might do better if it was not dedicated to Red Hat products only."
"It has not been significantly updated in a while."
"Automation can always be improved and refined to continue to make it better."
"They could make it more easy to use and improve the GUI so that it's more intuitive."
"Its configuration process could be better."
"Web UI."
"It is difficult to set up."
"A hardened set of tests would be much appreciated."
"There is a little bit of pain when it comes to libraries and what is needed to run the product."
"SaltStack's features are minimal."
"This solution could be integrated with more hardware for an improved offering."
Red Hat Satellite is ranked 4th in Configuration Management with 22 reviews while SaltStack is ranked 14th in Configuration Management with 33 reviews. Red Hat Satellite is rated 8.2, while SaltStack is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Red Hat Satellite writes "A good product for managing patches and updates that could be more robust and up-to-date". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SaltStack writes "Orchestration tool that powers automation of processes with the click of a button". Red Hat Satellite is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, SUSE Manager, Microsoft Configuration Manager, AWS Systems Manager and vCenter Configuration Manager, whereas SaltStack is most compared with Microsoft Configuration Manager, VMware Aria Automation, HashiCorp Terraform, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and ServiceNow. See our Red Hat Satellite vs. SaltStack 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.