Compare Chef vs. SCCM
Chef is ranked 4th in Configuration Management with 13 reviews while SCCM is ranked 2nd in Configuration Management with 14 reviews. Chef is rated 8.4, while SCCM is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Chef writes "It never uses any type of human-readable interface. Therefore, you don't have to go into a GUI nor use a command line tool". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SCCM writes "Enables us to set up schedules, according to security needs, to automate server and desktop patching". Chef is most compared with SCCM, Ansible and BigFix, whereas SCCM is most compared with BigFix, Ansible and Quest KACE Systems Management. See our Chef vs. SCCM report.
Most Helpful Review | |||||
|
| ||||
 Find out what your peers are saying about Chef vs. SCCM and other solutions. Updated: April 2020. 407,845 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |||||
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros | |
You set it and forget it. You don't have to worry about the reliability or the deviations from any of the other configurations. It streamlined our deployments and system configurations across the board rather than have us use multiple configurations or tools, basically a one stop shop. The scalability of the product is quite nice. The most valuable feature is the language that it uses: Ruby. This solution has improved my organization in the way that deployment has become very quick and orchestration is easy. If we have thousands of servers we can easily deploy in a small amount of time. We can deploy the applications or any kind of announcements in much less time. The most important thing is it can handle a 100,000 servers at the same time easily with no time constraints. Deployment has become quick and orchestration is now easy. 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 features are application deployment and task-sequenced imaging. The most valuable features are Remote Connect, SUP, Cloud functionality, Report, Query, and third-party patching. This solution has made life easy with respect to patching, compliance, and OSD. This has made the management of our environment easier. This solution helps us by automating the patching of our system. The most valuable feature is the graphical-based reports of software updates that have been successful, the ones that have failed, and a summary of where the failures are what security breaches may occur. It is a good choice for deployment that performs very well. It saves a lot of money when you can install things automatically and they are installed the exact same way on every computer. |
Cons | |
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. The agent on the server sometimes acts finicky. I would like to see more security features for Chef and more automation. I would rate this solution a nine because our use case and whatever we need is there. Ten out of ten is perfect. We have to go to IOD and stuff so they should consider things like this to make it a ten. Since we are heading to IoT, this product should consider anything related to this. There is a slight barrier to entry if you are used to using Ansible, since it is Ruby-based. 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. | The operations could be faster and you need some patience with this tool. The cost of the product can be improved. This solution needs to be supported on all Operating systems. Not everything is readily available, and there are a lot of commands that are only executable via PowerShell. This solution should be simpler, and more consistent across modules/sections. I would like to see an agentless version of the solution. The setup was complex and I faced a lot of problems initially because I was new to the solution. Our company would prefer not rebooting computers while people are using them. There seems to be no strategy behind it. |
Pricing and Cost Advice | |
I wasn't involved in the purchasing, but I am pretty sure that we are happy with the current pricing and licensing since it never comes up. We are using the free, open source version of the software, which we are happy with at this time. Purchasing the solution from AWS Marketplace was a good experience. AWS's pricing is pretty in line with the product's regular pricing. Though instance-wise, AWS is not the cheapest in the market. We are able to save in development time, deployment time, and it makes it easier to manage the environments. The price is always a problem. It is high. There is room for improvement. I do like purchasing on the AWS Marketplace, but I would like the ability to negotiate and have some flexibility in the pricing on it. When we're rolling out a new server, we're not using the AWS Marketplace AMI, we're using our own AMI, but we are paying them a licensing fee. The price per node is a little weird. It doesn't scale along with your organization. If you're truly utilizing Chef to its fullest, then the number of nodes which are being utilized in any particular day might scale or change based on your Auto Scaling groups. How do you keep track of that or audit it? Then, how do you appropriately license it? It's difficult. | The licensing is good because they have various options, depending on what you are looking for. SCCM comes with its own version of SQL Server. If you use that SQL Server with SCCM and don't use it for another applications than you get an SQL Server for free. Overall, I think it's fine. It's pretty much in-line because there are ways to offset it with the Office 365 licensing. Pricing and licensing are a downside of SCCM. It's expensive. I'd have to confirm this, but I think they changed the licensing to core-based instead of socket-based. It's not cheap, because you have to buy the software, you have to buy SQL. Another thing we learned from talking to Microsoft is that they provide you a license for SQL if you run it on the same box as the primary server. If you run it outside that box, you have to buy SQL. Microsoft does recommend you running it on the same box because of performance. But then, in order to run SQL, SCCM, and everything on the same box, you better have some resources. It's an expensive solution. There's no doubt about it. Pricing and licensing are horrible. You have to not look at dollar value to use SCCM. It's super-duper expensive but it works. The acquisition cost is expensive, it's labor-intensive. But it works. |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Configuration Management solutions are best for your needs. 407,845 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |
Ranking  | |
Views 5,626 Comparisons 4,074 Reviews 13 Average Words per Review 602 Avg. Rating 8.5 | Views 40,033 Comparisons 27,430 Reviews 14 Average Words per Review 482 Avg. Rating 8.2 |
Top Comparisons | |
 Compared 26% of the time.  Compared 26% of the time.  Compared 16% of the time. | Compared 25% of the time. Compared 24% of the time.  Compared 8% of the time. |
Also Known As | |
| System Center Configuration Manager | |
Learn | |
| Chef | Microsoft |
Overview | |
Chef, is the leader in DevOps, driving collaboration through code to automate infrastructure, security, compliance and applications. Chef provides a single path to production making it faster and safer to add value to applications and meet the demands of the customer. Deployed broadly in production by the Global 5000 and used by more than half of the Fortune 500, Chef develops 100 percent of its software as open source under the Apache 2.0 license with no restrictions on its use. Chef Enterprise Automation Stack™, a commercial distribution, is developed solely from that open source code and unifies security, compliance, infrastructure and application automation with observability. Chef provides an unequaled developer experience for the Coded Enterprise by enabling users to express infrastructure, security policies and the application lifecycle as code, modernizing development, packaging and delivery of any application to any platform. For more information, visit http://chef.io and follow @chef. | With System Center Configuration Manager, you can manage PCs and servers, keeping software up-to-date, setting configuration and security policies, and monitoring system status while giving your employees access to corporate applications on the devices that they choose. |
Offer | |
Learn more about Chef | Learn more about SCCM |
Sample Customers | |
| Facebook, Standard Bank, GE Capital, Nordstrom, Optum, Barclays, IGN, General Motors, Scholastic, Riot Games, NCR, Gap | Bank Alfalah Ltd., Wªrth Handelsges.m.b.H, Dimension Data, Japan Business Systems, St. Lucie County Public Schools, MISC Berhad |
Top Industries | |
Software R&D Company33% Comms Service Provider12% Government7% Retailer6% | Insurance Company13% Government13% Financial Services Firm13% Transportation Company13% Software R&D Company33% Comms Service Provider12% Government6% Retailer5% |
Company Size | |
Small Business13% Midsize Enterprise27% Large Enterprise60% | Small Business28% Midsize Enterprise20% Large Enterprise52% Small Business4% Midsize Enterprise14% Large Enterprise82% |
Find out what your peers are saying about Chef vs. SCCM and other solutions. Updated: April 2020.
407,845 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See also Chef Reviews, SCCM Reviews, and our list of Best Configuration Management Companies.
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.