Digital.ai Release vs. Progress Chef

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Digital.ai Release
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Digital.ai Release, formerly XebiaLabs XL Release, is a release management tool designed for enterprises that enables users to control and track releases, standardize processes, and bake compliance and security into software release pipelines. As a release orchestration tool, Digital.ai Release works specifically for continuous delivery, and enables teams across an organization to model and monitor releases, automate tasks within IT infrastructure, in order to cut release times and improve…N/A
Progress Chef
Score 6.5 out of 10
N/A
Chef IT infrastructure automation suites were developed by Chef Software in Seattle and acquired by Progress Software in September 2020. The Chef Enterprise Automation Stack is an integrated suite of automation technologies presented as a solution for delivering change quickly, repeatedly, and securely over every application's lifecycle. The Chef Effortless Infrastructure Suit is an integrated suite of automation technologies to codify infrastructure, security, and compliance, as well as…N/A
Pricing
Digital.ai ReleaseProgress Chef
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Digital.ai ReleaseProgress Chef
Free Trial
YesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Digital.ai ReleaseProgress Chef
Considered Both Products
Digital.ai Release
Chose Digital.ai Release
Deployment and release management can be done in various ways. But, XL Release or Digita.ai, helps in simplifying the process with predefined plugins, pre-developed security features, etc that help manage and process deployment cycles quicker and in a processed way.
Chose Digital.ai Release
XL release is simpler to configure and deploy to the organization than other change management platforms I have used. That simplicity has minor drawbacks requiring you to fit into a limited set of control methods but that exercise helped us simplify a needlessly onerous process.
Progress Chef
Chose Progress Chef
Chef is the more developer-oriented of the three main tools in this space. It has a steeper learning curve as a result but it allows you to do more. Puppet seems to be more geared towards automated the management of the operating system. Ansible is an excellent tool but …
Chose Progress Chef
We considered the three leading competitors in the field: Chef, Puppet and Ansible. Ansible is a very strong competitor and has a nice degree of flexibility in that it does not require a client install. Instead the configuration is delivered by SSH which is very simple. Puppet …
Chose Progress Chef
Puppet Labs and CFEngine are also open source and competes with Chef. Chef has more support from the community with templates available for large scale IT deployments. RedHat Ansible is better suited when you are already using RedHat OS and OpenShift since it comes as it comes …
Chose Progress Chef
Briefly looked into Puppet but ended up going with Chef because a colleague had experience with it instead. Didn't get far enough into a deployment to even really compare the two.
Chose Progress Chef
We found that Chef was easy to use, and we liked the whole concept of recipes and cookbooks. We were using the concept of recipes and cookbooks for our SQL development, so Chef was a natural fit for our team members and environment. That whole paradigm is easy for everyone …
Chose Progress Chef
I've mostly explained the differences between Ansible and Chef in my previous answers. I generally prefer Chef over Ansible because the platforms we use have very convenient cookbooks.
Chose Progress Chef
Chef is easy to install and manage, and the learning curve is minimal, as most of the engineers are already aware of the syntax to configure services. With flexible crating recipes and cookbooks, Chef made our jobs easier, and also it integrates well with Puppet. Overall …
Chose Progress Chef
Chef is something we have been using for a while, so it is the natural choice when training new engineers to maintain our systems. If I was to choose a configuration management tool now, I would pick Ansible mainly because of its agentless nature and YAML cookbook language …
Chose Progress Chef
To be honest I believe SaltStack would provide a very similar experience to Chef and would allow us to automate much of our operational tasks in the same way, however I feel that Chef is more conducive to a mixed environment of Windows and Linux servers. This is the primary …
Chose Progress Chef
We believe Chef is a great tool for DevOp. It works really well with repository tools such as bitbucket and artifactory. The other products we evaluated either were too pricey or did not have the support we needed for a company that was very vanilla with automation. We selected …
Chose Progress Chef
We were evaluating Ansible as it was agent less, SSH based, simple to use and is completely based on SSH protocol. As and when the servers count increase the performance might degrade. One main disadvantage with Ansible is it is more suitable for linux based systems where SSH …
Chose Progress Chef
I really found that Chef to be much friendlier and innovative than Puppet. There is an opinion in the DevOps community that says that Chef is friendlier to programmers whereas Puppet is friendlier to system administrators. This might be true, as I do come from development …
Chose Progress Chef
Chef is good for organizations with many servers, because of the client-server approach. I guess ansible can be used for some 20-40 servers, just ssh and run the playbook. Chef is in ruby which is a really simple to learn language as opposed to competitiors.
Chose Progress Chef
Chef was easier to setup than Puppet. It also has better Windows support and documentation. Reading through the Chef documentation gave good examples on how to configure things for Windows environments, however Puppet was a bit lacking in that regard. Puppet has better support …
Chose Progress Chef
Ansible and salt stack seem to be the new cool kids on the block because they are easier to setup and manage across smaller teams. I think the use of puppet is dying down in favor for these new technologies. I would like to see chef use cases with simpler implementation.
Best Alternatives
Digital.ai ReleaseProgress Chef
Small Businesses
Polarion ALM
Polarion ALM
Score 9.9 out of 10
IBM Terraform
IBM Terraform
Score 8.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Polarion ALM
Polarion ALM
Score 9.9 out of 10
Ansible
Ansible
Score 9.1 out of 10
Enterprises
Polarion ALM
Polarion ALM
Score 9.9 out of 10
Ansible
Ansible
Score 9.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Digital.ai ReleaseProgress Chef
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.9
(0 ratings)
Usability
9.0
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
9.4
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
4.0
(0 ratings)
7.7
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
-
(0 ratings)
9.6
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Digital.ai ReleaseProgress Chef
Likelihood to Recommend
XL release fits very well when you need cross-team coordination in a release process where you want to coordinate an alpha or beta program with marketing as part of a major release process.
Read full review
Chef is a very nice tool for establishing and maintaining a consistent configuration across a range of servers. In addition, Automate allows the continued monitoring and maintenance of servers so they don't drift from established standards. Overall, it deals very well with complex systems. Chef is slightly less applicable for a micro-services approach where the servers are replicated from a simple and known starting point.
Read full review
Pros
  • Cross-team release workflow control using email, texts, scripts allow our release management to be truly a 360 process.
  • XL Release allowing our Jenkins toolchain to control the beginning of release trains which is very powerful.
  • XL release allows us to expose the business process flow for anyone to read direct at the source which runs the process instead of a separate vision.
Read full review
  • Chef is very easy to learn. Written in ruby, Chef code is high enough level for non-ruby coders to get a general idea of what the script is doing.
  • Chef can be a one stop shop for writing code, testing infrastructure, and deployment of applications.
  • The Chef support team is very helpful in their auto manager support as well as active support in their Slack channels from development engineers & architects.
Read full review
Cons
  • Pagination of data - across tool.
  • User Roles Management API can be improved.
  • Case insensitive ID's are treated differently making user face login and access issues.
  • Dependency on Universal template/custom plugins creation should be reduced.
  • Code versioning of templates is very difficult.
  • Better error handling.
  • Futures Timeout Issues.
Read full review
  • One main concern with Chef is the maintainability of Chef master.
  • The Chef-client should be installed on every node we want to do any automation.
  • It is mostly Ruby and there's a learning curve. Need to understand the fundamentals of Chef very throughly to play around with attributes, templates etc etc.
  • The Chef-client agent needs to be run on the nodes frequently to update the details of it state to master. And also to index the nodes based on tags.
Read full review
Usability
The tool is easy to use, easy to navigate and learn. Manages releases with proper approvals in a systematic manner. Though it needs minor improvements in terms of pagination (data loading), access management, but, overall the tool helps in increasing productivity and less time for production deployments.
Read full review
The suite of tools is very powerful. The ability to create custom modules allows for unlimited potential for managing all aspects of a system. However, there is pretty significant learning curve with the toolset. It currently takes approx 3-4 months for new engineers to feel comfortable with our implementation
Read full review
Performance
No answers on this topic
It loads quick enough for basically all our systems. Because we have this for local dev environments, speed isn't really a big issue here. Yes, depending on the system, sometimes it does take a relatively long time, but it's not an issue for me. One thing that is annoying is that if I want to make a small change to a cookbook and re-run the Chef client, I can't just make the change in the cache and run it. I have to do the whole process of updating the server.
Read full review
Support Rating
Support is not good at all. To this day, I have to mail my queries and their support site does not log in for me (me alone). But, upon contacting many times, no one helps with a proper response. Though good thing is, I get a proper response over mail too. But, being informative about the tool and not on the issues faced by users outside of the process to get support should also be addressed equally. Which is currently missing in support.
Read full review
Support for Chef is easily available for fee or through the open source community as most the issues you will face will have been addressed through the Chef developer community forums. The documentation for Chef is moderate to great and easily readable.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Deployment and release management can be done in various ways. But, XL Release or Digita.ai, helps in simplifying the process with predefined plugins, pre-developed security features, etc that help manage and process deployment cycles quicker and in a processed way.
Read full review
Chef is the more developer-oriented of the three main tools in this space. It has a steeper learning curve as a result but it allows you to do more. Puppet seems to be more geared towards automated the management of the operating system. Ansible is an excellent tool but requires you to allow SSH connectivity into all of your instances.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Positive - Faster deployments.
  • Positive - Better tracking on progress of each release.
  • Negative - Data once goes beyond a limit, pagination and data load take a toll on users.
  • Positive - Dashboard can be customizable.
Read full review
  • We can deploy tens to hundreds of servers in a small amount of time.
  • We can grow our infrastructure very quickly with limited resources adjusting to customer demand as soon as the need arises.
  • We are able to automate many of the mundane tasks that used to occupy the time of our engineers allowing us to focus on more critical tasks.
Read full review
ScreenShots