We performed a comparison between Automic Continuous Delivery Automation and Chef based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, GitLab, Red Hat and others in Release Automation."The product provides efficiency, in terms time, cost, and resources."
"You can design your workflows for your needs."
"Self-service for developers, because they are able to deploy to development departments on their own, without needing people from operations."
"I think on a day-to-day basis, it has increased the capacity to deploy. We don't have to wait for someone to do something."
"The IT process automation is the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"Gives people insight into what's happening during the deployment."
"We have saved on our time costs and have seen more quality."
"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."
"It is a well thought out product which integrates well with what developers and customers are looking for."
"Automation is everything. Having so many servers in production, many of our processes won't work nor scale. So, we look for tools to help us automate the process, and Chef is one of them."
"Chef is a great tool for an automation person who wants to do configuration management with infrastructure as a code."
"The most important thing is it can handle a 100,000 servers at the same time easily with no time constraints."
"Chef recipes are easy to write and move across different servers and environments."
"The scalability of the product is quite nice."
"It has been very easy to tie it into our build and deploy automation for production release work, etc. All the Chef pieces more or less run themselves."
"The most valuable feature is the language that it uses: Ruby."
"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."
"The stability of the solution can be improved."
"GUI for mobile phones: Availability to approve and start deployment through mobile phones."
"key thing is support for cloud-based deployment. That is lacking."
"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."
"One of the biggest features I've been asked by my team to put in there is opening more scripting languages to be part of the platform. There is a little bit of a learning curve in learning how to code some of the workflows in Automic at this time. If widely used languages like Perl and Python were integrated, on top of what's already there, the proprietary language, it would make it easier to on-board new resources."
"We hope that we can integrate the new CD Directive into our portfolio, so we can bring the deployment and release management closer together."
"Not a perfect ten because the user interface is brand new and it needs improvement."
"I would also like to see more analytics and reporting features. Currently, the analytics and reporting features are limited. I'll have to start building my own custom solution with Power BI or Tableau or something like that. If it came with built-in analytics and reporting features that would be great."
"I would like them to add database specific items, configuration items, and migration tools. Not necessarily on the builder side or the actual setup of the system, but more of a migration package for your different database sets, such as MongoDB, your extenders, etc. I want to see how that would function with a transition out to AWS for Aurora services and any of the RDBMS packages."
"If they can improve their software to support Docker containers, it would be for the best."
"Third-party innovations need improvement, and I would like to see more integration with other platforms."
"There is a slight barrier to entry if you are used to using Ansible, since it is Ruby-based."
"Chef could get better by being more widely available, adapting to different needs, and providing better documentation."
"The time that it takes in terms of integration. Cloud integration is comparatively easy, but when it comes to two-link based integrations - like trying to integrate it with any monitoring tools, or maybe some other ticketing tools - it takes longer. That is because most of the out-of-the-box integration of the APIs needs some revisiting."
"Vertical scalability is still good but the horizontal, adding more technologies, platforms, tools, integrations, Chef should take a look into that."
More Automic Continuous Delivery Automation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Automic Continuous Delivery Automation is ranked 17th in Release Automation while Chef is ranked 12th in Release Automation with 18 reviews. Automic Continuous Delivery Automation is rated 8.0, while Chef is rated 8.0. 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 Chef writes "Useful for large infrastructure, reliable, but steep learning cureve". Automic Continuous Delivery Automation is most compared with UrbanCode Deploy, Nolio Release Automation and Microsoft Azure DevOps, whereas Chef is most compared with Jenkins, AWS Systems Manager, Microsoft Azure DevOps, BigFix and Microsoft Configuration Manager.
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.
