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."Autopilot is a great feature. Most users are looking for a zero-touch deployment."
"Stable product that's easy to set up compared to other MDM products."
"We have found the solution is capable of scaling."
"In terms of technical support, you will get an immediate response."
"The ability to (somewhat) manage full Windows 10 computers including EXE-based or MSI-based application deployments using Azure Active Directory as Identity."
"Conditional access has helped us tailor and enforce our security policies in the mobile space."
"The aspects I find most valuable are the managing the data and applications. I can also restrict the users to install any applications. I can also wipe the data if the phone was missplaced or stolen. These are the basics for me."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"Helps me perform changes in connected infrastructure thanks to the discovery features."
"The most valuable feature is the impact analysis."
"The most useful features are the playbooks. We can develop our playbooks and simplify them doing something like a cross platform."
"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."
"Since it is in YAML, if I have to explain it to somebody else, they can easily understand it."
"RBAC is great around Organizations and I can use that backend as our lab. Ingesting stuff into the JSON logs, into any sort of logging collector; it works with Splunk and there are other collectors as well. It supports Sumo and that helps, I can go create reports in Sumo Logic. Workflows are an interesting feature. I can collect a lot of templates and create a workflow out of them."
"One of the most valuable features is that Ansible is agentless. It does not have dependencies, other than Python, which is very generic in terms of dependencies for all systems and for any environment. Being agentless, Ansible is very convenient for everything."
"It is agentless. I don't have to think about which client system my unit has understanding in or not, because I can execute from my system. It will go and configure it, and any module that it is looking for will be shipped out."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that we don’t need an agent for it to work."
"China blocks Google and Google Play Store, which makes installation challenging. Microsoft Intune is a company software, which has to be installed to the app portal or Microsoft Software Center."
"Intune could add more Linux security features and more integration with on-prem devices. The application deployments can also be improved."
"It would help if administrators could pinpoint the exact location of a stolen device to help law enforcement retrieve it and apprehend the suspect."
"The reporting could be improved, as it's pretty poor compared to other products of this type."
"Integration with Mac devices requires some improvement."
"In the next release, I would like a feature to be able to properly lock down the device. For example, if an attacker or somebody steals the phone, you can be sure that the pin cannot be broken."
"The reports that are generated aren't so great. They don't give a lot of meaning so far, but that could be down to user knowledge than the actual reporting side of things. I'm not a big user of it, but I was a bigger user of MaaS360, and we used to be able to run weekly and monthly reports. In the case of any deviations. we'd get a warning immediately. That's not so easy to do or to get in place for Intune. This could be just a user issue, but when I compare both, that's the only thing that's lacking for me."
"The difficulty of the the roll out is surprisingly difficult considering this product is supposed to be an integrated part of the 365 suite."
"The native UI should be simplified because it is outdated and a little bit over-complicated."
"I have seen indications that the documentation needs improvement. They are providing a "How to Improve Your Documentation" presentation at this conference."
"There needs to be improvement in the orchestration."
"The user interface on the Ansible Tower product could be better, but it is functional."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We are very satisfied with what we have. From a management point of view, whatever makes it easier for my team to help customers write their own playbooks would be something very beneficial. Everything is going as a service. Creating playbooks can become much more consumer-oriented so that customers do not need to contact us to write their own playbooks."
"Accessibility. Ansible uses a CLI by default. Those accustomed to it can find their way and adopt the YAML files easily over time. But, some users are more comfortable using UIs..."
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.
