What users are saying about
75 Ratings
22 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
22 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 9.5 out of 101

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

Ansible

Ansible works well if you can rely on having rock solid SSH connectivity. It also works well with the instances that you're configurations are relatively disposable. As Ansible makes changes as it processes the playbook, it is possible for changes to be made halfway down the playbook and then a failure to put the instance in an in-between state where it's neither the before state or after state. Rather it's somewhere in between.
Chien Huey profile photo

SaltStack

Managing heterogeneous environments of large numbers of nodes, especially nodes which may need sudden changes (security updates, for instance), or frequent replacement, is a strength for Saltstack.Simplicity is not a strength for Saltstack. In a homogenous environment (all CentOS 7, for example, with no Debian or Windows) I might recommend using Ansible instead - it is less flexible and granular, but simpler to configure.
No photo available

Pros

  • Imperative orchestration works well. There is no resource ordination issues like there can be with Puppet or Chef.
  • It is easy to get started and start iterating on plays, books, roles.
  • The docker and rax resources are very robust and compelling. I hope these continue to develop and flourish.
No photo available
  • A superb remote execution framework! SaltStack allows us to easily program numerous functions on top of it. For example, we developed a fast parallel asynchronous deployment tool that handles all software deployment, including interdependent service management.
  • Configuration management is now easy. We take advantage of this to automate (in tandem with AWS tools) the stand-up of all servers and services. It is also relatively easy to create new configuration management states for software not yet supported by the community (e.g. Grafana).
  • Flexibility. Numerous small utilities have been built which simply wrap around SaltStack to allow tedious tasks to become easy.
William Cannon profile photo

Cons

  • There are conflicting stories on how best to organize a role's structure. Old documentation exists, and as Ansible has grown directions have pivoted a bit. This should be trued up.
  • Pull-based Ansible is a compelling use case. Ansible should come up with a pattern which supports this configuration.
  • How to integrate ServerSpec infrastructure integration testing is sorely lacking. Ansible should curate practices and docs around this.
No photo available
  • Steep learning curve
  • No sandbox, dry run, or execution plan mode. It's hard to iterate quickly during development, and quite easy to break things during development.
  • Copying huge amount of small files is slow and suboptimal — make sure to package your software into tarball/dpkg/your favorite package format if you need to copy it to the instance.
No photo available

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

In the time of integration, we chose Ansible instead of Puppet because it was simpler to use, based on Python and didn't require additional server environments to run. Of course, there are a lot of different alternatives like Chef or Salt Stack.
Blagovest Petrov profile photo
Ansible and Salt have emerged around the same time, and are pretty close.Ansible pros:- seems to have a better community these days.- it is simpler to setup.- DSL is considered to be simpler.Salt pros:- It is better for auto scaling environment.- DSL might not be as intuitive, but it's well-designed, very powerful and consistent.
No photo available

Return on Investment

  • Ansible is a great investment if used for its well-suited scenarios. It has had a positive impact on my clients who used it to modernize their application deployment process. Ansible has 1) increased the reliability of the deployment process and 2) reduced scripts maintenance overhead.
  • Since Ansible is simpler and faster to get started with - compared to centralized configuration management solutions - it can be tempting to use it initially for simpler applications/infrastructure that are anticipated to evolve to complex ecosystems, you may find yourself having to rewrite in another tool in such cases.
Aiman Najjar profile photo
  • Engineering spends less time on Ops
  • Engineering has more time to build features
  • Server farm is more stable, which means better uptime and happier customer, as well as less pages for engineers.
No photo available

Pricing Details

Ansible

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

SaltStack

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