GoCD vs. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
GoCD
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
GoCD, from ThoughtWorks in Chicago, is an application lifecycle management and development tool.N/A
Ansible
Score 9.2 out of 10
N/A
The Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform (acquired by Red Hat in 2015) is a foundation for building and operating automation across an organization. The platform includes tools needed to implement enterprise-wide automation, and can automate resource provisioning, and IT environments and configuration of systems and devices. It can be used in a CI/CD process to provision the target environment and to then deploy the application on it.
$5,000
per year
Pricing
GoCDRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Basic Tower
5,000
per year
Enterprise Tower
10,000
per year
Premium Tower
14,000
per year
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
GoCDAnsible
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
GoCDRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Features
GoCDRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Configuration Management
Comparison of Configuration Management features of Product A and Product B
GoCD
-
Ratings
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
8.4
141 Ratings
5% above category average
Infrastructure Automation00 Ratings9.1135 Ratings
Automated Provisioning00 Ratings8.6132 Ratings
Parallel Execution00 Ratings8.7125 Ratings
Node Management00 Ratings8.4117 Ratings
Reporting & Logging00 Ratings7.6130 Ratings
Version Control00 Ratings8.2115 Ratings
Best Alternatives
GoCDRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Small Businesses
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.6 out of 10
HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.6 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.6 out of 10
HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.6 out of 10
Enterprises
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.6 out of 10
HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.6 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
GoCDRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(2 ratings)
9.4
(207 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
9.4
(5 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
8.4
(100 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
8.7
(5 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(5 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(2 ratings)
Ease of integration
-
(0 ratings)
8.6
(5 ratings)
User Testimonials
GoCDRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Likelihood to Recommend
ThoughtWorks
Previously, our team used Jenkins. However, since it's a shared deployment resource we don't have admin access. We tried GoCD as it's open source and we really like. We set up our deployment pipeline to run whenever codes are merged to master, run the unit test and revert back if it doesn't pass. Once it's deployed to the staging environment, we can simply do 1-click to deploy the appropriate version to production. We use this to deploy to an on-prem server and also AWS. Some deployment pipelines use custom Powershell script for.Net application, some others use Bash script to execute the docker push and cloud formation template to build elastic beanstalk.
Read full review
Red Hat
For automating the configuration of a multi-node, multi-domain (Storage, VM, Container) cluster, Ansible is still the best choice; however, it is not an easy task to achieve. Creating the infrastructure layer, i.e., creating network nodes, VMs, and K8s clusters, still can't be achieved via Ansible. Additionally, error handling remains complex to resolve.
Read full review
Pros
ThoughtWorks
  • Pipeline-as-Code works really well. All our pipelines are defined in yml files, which are checked into SCM.
  • The ability to link multiple pipelines together is really cool. Later pipelines can declare a dependency to pick up the build artifacts of earlier ones.
  • Agents definition is really great. We can define multiple different kinds of environments to best suit our diverse build systems.
Read full review
Red Hat
  • Debugging is easy, as it tells you exactly within your job where the job failed, even when jumping around several playbooks.
  • Ansible seems to integrate with everything, and the community is big enough that if you are unsure how to approach converting a process into a playbook, you can usually find something similar to what you are trying to do.
  • Security in AAP seems to be pretty straightforward. Easy to organize and identify who has what permissions or can only see the content based on the organization they belong to.
Read full review
Cons
ThoughtWorks
  • UI can be improved
  • Location for settings can be re-arranged
  • API for setting up pipeline
Read full review
Red Hat
  • I can't think of any right now because I've heard about the Lightspeed and I'm really excited about that. Ansible has been really solid for us. We haven't had any issues. Maybe the upgrade process, but other than that, as coming from a user, it's awesome.
  • Give out Lightspeed for free.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
ThoughtWorks
No answers on this topic
Red Hat
Even is if it's a great tool, we are looking to renew our licence for our production servers only. The product is very expensive to use, so we might look for a cheaper solution for our non-production servers. One of the solution we are looking, is AWX, free, and similar to AAP. This is be perfect for our non-production servers.
Read full review
Usability
ThoughtWorks
No answers on this topic
Red Hat
It's overall pretty easy to use foe all the applications I've mentioned before: configuring hosts, installing packages through tools like apt, applying yaml, making changes across wide groups of hosts, etc. Its not a 10 because of the inconveinience of the yaml setup, and the time to write is not worth it for something applied one time to only a few hosts
Read full review
Performance
ThoughtWorks
No answers on this topic
Red Hat
Great in almost every way compared to any other configuration management software. The only thing I wish for is python3 support. Other than that, YAML is much improved compared to the Ruby of Chef. The agentless nature is incredibly convenient for managing systems quickly, and if a member of your term has no terminal experience whatsoever they can still use the UI.
Read full review
Support Rating
ThoughtWorks
No answers on this topic
Red Hat
There is a lot of good documentation that Ansible and Red Hat provide which should help get someone started with making Ansible useful. But once you get to more complicated scenarios, you will benefit from learning from others. I have not used Red Hat support for work with Ansible, but many of the online resources are helpful.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
ThoughtWorks
No answers on this topic
Red Hat
I spoke on this topic today!
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
ThoughtWorks
GoCD is easier to setup, but harder to customize at runtime. There's no way to trigger a pipeline with custom parameters.
Jenkins is more flexible at runtime. You can define multiple user-provided parameters so when user needs to trigger a build, there's a form for him/her to input the parameters.
Read full review
Red Hat
AAP compares favorably with Terraform and Power Automate. I don't have much experience with Terraform, but I find AAP and Ansible easier to use as well as having more capabilities. Power Platform is also an excellent automation tool that is user friendly but I feel that Ansible has more compatibility with a variety of technologies.
Read full review
Return on Investment
ThoughtWorks
  • ROI has been good since it's open source
  • Settings.xml need to be backed up periodically. It contains all the settings for your pipelines! We accidentally deleted before and we have to restore and re-create several missing pipelines
  • More straight forward use of API and allows filtering e.g., pull all pipelines triggered after this date
Read full review
Red Hat
  • POSITIVE: currently used by the IT department and some others, but we want others to use it.
  • NEGATIVE: We need less technical output for the non-technical. It should be controllable or a setting within playbooks. We also need more graphical responses (non-technical).
  • POSITIVE: Always being updated and expanded (CaC, EDA, Policy as Code, execution environments, AI, etc..)
Read full review
ScreenShots