What users are saying about
75 Ratings
75 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.7 out of 101
42 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8 out of 101

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

Ansible

I would recommend Ansible to anyone, but I recognize it might not fit everyone's needs. I'm not as familiar with Chef, Puppet, or Salt, but they each have their strengths. For us, we needed to be able to manage a new server the moment it was created, so agent-based solutions were out. For our use, Ansible does everything we've asked it to.
John Grosjean profile photo

Puppet Enterprise

Most of the major issues that people had with the language have been addressed in Puppet 4 which primarily pertain to the limitations of the language and its ability to scale. It would be nice to allow for full ruby support as an unsupported option though so developers are able to reference their own data sources dynamically.
Colby Shores profile photo

Pros

  • Unlike Puppet or Chef, Ansible doesn’t use an agent on the remote host. Instead it uses SSH which is to be installed on all the systems we want to manage.
  • Ansible is written in Python, which we install on all remote host. This means that we don’t have to setup a client server environment before using Ansible.
  • Ansible can work alongside our other DevOp tool, Chef. This allows us to reach out to existing Chef teams in order to try and organize their work all under the same DevOps umbrella.
No photo available
  • Provides a reliable mechanism for deploying infrastructure-as-code, especially when integrated with source control (such as Git).
  • Manages system configuration drift to provide greater stability and system up-time; the same configuration-as-code can be pushed out over and over.
  • A strong asset when moving teams towards DevOps by providing development a way to take control of their own assets.
Anthony Parcero profile photo

Cons

  • Unlike Chef, Ansible employes a Push methodology rather than Pull. We found that this doesn't scale well for us, thus we had to consider using Ansible Tower in order to scale.
  • Ansible's free training and tutorials do no provide as much depth and ease for first time users trying it out for the first time.
  • From the limited experience we have had with Ansible Tower, the UI is not very user friendly. There's a lot of bells and whistles that can prove o be overwhelming at times.
No photo available
  • Steep learning curve for first time users.
  • The complexity can get a little overwhelming in a more collaborative deployment methodology across multiple platforms and data centers.
  • Some external changes to Puppet like the new Puppet 4 architecture can cause considerable time consuming migration efforts especially if you have a lot of legacy classes and configuration that do not conform readily to the new design.
Mark Gargiulo profile photo

Performance

Ansible7.5
Based on 2 answers
Out of the box, Ansible can be slow over a bad connection, as it's establishing an SSH connection to the target server for each little task. There are some adjustments you can make to the defaults that greatly improve performance. And if you run Ansible on the same network as the target (i.e. by using a jump box or Jenkins server), then it can be crazy fast. I'd give it a 10 for speed except that it does require these adjustments first.
John Grosjean profile photo
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Alternatives Considered

Ansible is sufficient for our purposes because our configurations are relatively simple. Chef and Puppet would work better for more complex configurations. Also, our applications are deployed using Docker which simplifies our configuration requirements. An organization with more complex configurations would find Chef or Puppet suits their needs better.
Chien Huey profile photo
HPSA is a licensed product and incurs significant upfront investment costs due to COTS licensing. Puppet Data Center Automation has a significantly lower upfront investment and product documentation is more readily available. Chef is a very similar offering, however, at the time our decision was considered, the adoption of Chef vs. Puppet was significantly less in the community.
Charles Inglese profile photo

Return on Investment

  • Ansible makes it easier to ship code as the orchestrator of the release.
  • Ansible enables clear blue-green release processes.
  • Ansible moves fast and breaks the runtime with regressions. We rightly pin dependencies hard to insulate ourselves from unintentional breaking changes.
No photo available
  • Allows our customer to spend less on software cost.
  • Highly agree on employee efficiency.
  • Faster lead conversion
Ethan Tran profile photo

Pricing Details

Ansible

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details

Puppet Enterprise

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details