What users are saying about
92 Ratings
34 Ratings
92 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.5 out of 101
34 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.3 out of 101

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

TeamCity

TC is great when you have a relatively straightforward sequence of build steps. It allows you to vary the set of build steps by application, and control the dependencies within the build steps.For our needs, I haven't found any scenarios where TC doesn't provide what we need.
Larry Reed profile photo

Pros

Ansible

  • 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

TeamCity

  • Fully customizable build process. Each step of the build process can be parameterized and customized to address specific needs of particular applications. This allowed us to easily convert from a custom VM-based environment to our current Docker-based environment.
  • Manages large numbers of build agents seamlessly. This allows us to run multiple builds on many different applications in a most efficient manner.
  • Build steps can be managed in an arbitrary manner, allowing some parts of the process to proceed in parallel while restricting others to depend on completion of all relevant steps.
Larry Reed profile photo

Cons

Ansible

  • 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

TeamCity

  • The Debug log is quite verbose and could be made more intuitive for troubleshooting build errors
  • I would recommend improving it by some kind of integration with platforms like StackOverflow to aid developers and further improve the turnaround time for setting up successful builds
  • There is still scope for improvement for build integration with projects in AWS and Azure cloud platforms.
Ramendra Sahu profile photo

Performance

Ansible

Ansible 8.4
Based on 5 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

TeamCity

TeamCity 9.5
Based on 2 answers
TeamCity runs really well, even when sharing a small instance with other applications. The user interface adequately conveys important information without being overly bloated, and it is snappy. There isn't any significant overhead to build agents or unit test runners that we have measured.
Anthony Aziz profile photo

Alternatives Considered

Ansible

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

TeamCity

We've only ever really used TeamCity as a CI platform. Running tests on these CI clusters is worlds more efficient and just plain easier than having to run individual tests on your local machine. You just hit one button here, versus either writing some run script or even worse running each test. I mean, who does that?
No photo available

Return on Investment

Ansible

  • It has sped up our deployments considerably.
  • It has help developers do more DevOps work.
John Reeve profile photo

TeamCity

  • TeamCity allows us to automate our Build and Deployment workflow and ensure that committed code works in a standardized build environment.
Tom Paulus profile photo

Pricing Details

Ansible

General

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

TeamCity

General

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

Add comparison