We performed a comparison between Automic Continuous Delivery Automation and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, GitLab, Red Hat and others in Release Automation."The event monitor is very good. You can monitor when the file is created so you can pick up the file once it's done."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to see which problems have been resolved from deployment."
"It is an umbrella system that allows us to integrate many different systems into our heterogeneous environment."
"I would say our headwind, or our time to market, is reduced considerably. We get more consistent results out of it, because you write one time and once it's automated you expect it to behave the same way every time. And it cut down a lot of re-work for us."
"It gives us good feedback on visualizations and on how our processes have progressed."
"It provides a wonderful user interface which is easy to use."
"The main benefit is you can deploy everything with it."
"You can design your workflows for your needs."
"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 does not require staff for deployment and maintenance. It just works."
"It is very extensible. There are many plugins and modules out there that everybody helps create to interact with different cloud providers as well."
"There are so many models that I don't have to create one."
"Being a game-changer in configuration management software is what has made Ansible so popular and widespread. Much of IT is based on SSH direct connectivity with a need for running infrastructure in an agentless way, and that has been a big plus. SSH has become a great security standard for managing servers. The whole thing has really become an out-of-the-box solution for managing a Unix estate."
"Some colleagues and other companies use it and comment that it is easy to use, easy to understand, and offers good features."
"It is all modular-based. If there is not a module for it today, someone will write it."
"I like the inventory management. It's a very nice, simple, concise way to keep all that data together. And the API allows us to use it even for things that are not Ansible."
"If you have a technical problem and need development of the tool, the support team is terrible, because they cannot help with the technical details."
"There is an issue with the stability in the tool. The process of agent will stop, then the monitoring agent can't be recognized because the process is running, but you can talk with the system."
"We hope that we can integrate the new CD Directive into our portfolio, so we can bring the deployment and release management closer together."
"It would be very beneficial for us to see integrations into cloud environments, especially into the Google Cloud environment because we are heading towards cloud."
"I would like to see more support for WebSphere."
"There needs to be better error handling and error descriptions. It should be more clear what the errors are and what we can do to fix them."
"key thing is support for cloud-based deployment. That is lacking."
"Not a perfect ten because the user interface is brand new and it needs improvement."
"Performance has been an issue on larger environments, but it has gotten a lot better over the past two years."
"For Ansible Tower, there are three tiers with ten nodes. I would like them to expand those ten nodes to 20, because ten nodes is not enough to test on."
"Some of the Cisco modules could be expanded, which would be great, along with not having to do so much coding in the background to make it work."
"It needs better documentation."
"The support could be better."
"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."
"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."
"The documentation for the installation step of deployment, OpenStack, etc., and these things have to be a bit more detailed."
More Automic Continuous Delivery Automation Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Automic Continuous Delivery Automation is ranked 17th in Release Automation while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is ranked 3rd in Release Automation with 58 reviews. Automic Continuous Delivery Automation is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Automic Continuous Delivery Automation writes "Reduces our time to market considerably with automated and consistent results". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform writes "Capable of broad integrations with easy-to-operate infrastructure and user controls". Automic Continuous Delivery Automation is most compared with Nolio Release Automation and UrbanCode Deploy, whereas Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is most compared with Red Hat Satellite, Microsoft Configuration Manager, VMware Aria Automation, Microsoft Azure DevOps and Microsoft Intune.
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.
