Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM) vs. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM)
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft's System Center Operations Manager (SCOM) is a monitoring and application performance management option, with the core datacenter and cloud-based systems monitoring.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
Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM)Red 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
Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM)Ansible
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
Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM)Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Features
Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM)Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Application Performance Management
Comparison of Application Performance Management features of Product A and Product B
Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM)
6.4
23 Ratings
17% below category average
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
-
Ratings
Application monitoring5.021 Ratings00 Ratings
Database monitoring8.123 Ratings00 Ratings
Threshold alerts10.023 Ratings00 Ratings
Predictive capabilities6.521 Ratings00 Ratings
Application performance management console3.020 Ratings00 Ratings
Collaboration tools5.118 Ratings00 Ratings
Out-of-the box templates to monitor applications7.621 Ratings00 Ratings
Application dependency mapping and thresholding5.819 Ratings00 Ratings
Virtualization monitoring7.021 Ratings00 Ratings
Server availability and performance monitoring8.222 Ratings00 Ratings
Server usage monitoring and capacity forecasting8.022 Ratings00 Ratings
IT Asset Discovery2.319 Ratings00 Ratings
Configuration Management
Comparison of Configuration Management features of Product A and Product B
Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM)
-
Ratings
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
8.2
146 Ratings
2% above category average
Infrastructure Automation00 Ratings8.9140 Ratings
Automated Provisioning00 Ratings8.4137 Ratings
Parallel Execution00 Ratings8.5130 Ratings
Node Management00 Ratings8.4122 Ratings
Reporting & Logging00 Ratings7.3134 Ratings
Version Control00 Ratings7.8118 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM)Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Small Businesses
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.6 out of 10
HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
ManageEngine Site24x7
ManageEngine Site24x7
Score 9.5 out of 10
Automox
Automox
Score 8.9 out of 10
Enterprises
ManageEngine Site24x7
ManageEngine Site24x7
Score 9.5 out of 10
Automox
Automox
Score 8.9 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM)Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(26 ratings)
9.4
(171 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
7.0
(1 ratings)
9.7
(5 ratings)
Usability
7.0
(1 ratings)
8.2
(57 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
8.7
(5 ratings)
Support Rating
9.0
(9 ratings)
8.0
(5 ratings)
Implementation Rating
8.0
(1 ratings)
8.0
(2 ratings)
Ease of integration
-
(0 ratings)
8.6
(5 ratings)
User Testimonials
Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM)Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Likelihood to Recommend
Microsoft
More appropriate for:
  • Pure Microsoft ecosystem environments (Windows Server and SQL server) and the most common Linux and UNIX platforms.
  • Environments where cost is less of a factor than settling on a single platform for monitoring
  • Environments where the administrators are familiar with the setup and installation of SCOM.
Less appropriate for:
  • Pure UNIX/Linux shops, especially versions not supported out of the box by SCOM.
  • Shops that cannot afford the engagement to setup/configure and maintain on a continuous basis.
  • Shops that cannot dedicate personnel to the care and feeding of SCOM, especially when supporting larger environments.
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
Microsoft
  • Allows us to visualize our systems in a single interface and see the status of health as well as relevant performance metrics.
  • A flexible and powerful interface with active alerting covering domain controllers, SQL servers, etc...
  • Allows you to customize your views and workspaces for specific tasks and needs.
  • Reporting is powerful and flexible.
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
Microsoft
  • One of the biggest drawbacks to SCOM is the sheer scope and complexity of the system. This can be a pro and a con. The system is very customizable, what you put into it is what you'll get out of it. That said, the learning curve is fairly steep. An organization needs to be committed to putting time and resources into SCOM to get the most out of it. I've heard stories from colleagues of several different companies that invested in SCOM and then abandoned it due to the excessive time and care required.
  • SCOM is expensive. Not only is the enterprise licensing costly, SCOM requires it's own servers, operational and warehouse databases to be maintained.
  • The OOB SCOM reports are a bit clunky and feel outdated.
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
Microsoft
Microsoft System Center Operations Manager is tightly integrated to Microsoft Windows servers os monitoring with great product support.
Read full review
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
Microsoft
Ease of Use and user friendly dashboard
Read full review
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
Microsoft
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
Microsoft
Hard to get support. The product is not being actively developed anymore, so it is hard to get new features for the product.
Read full review
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
Microsoft
Easy to install with intuitive interactive interface during the installation process a and integration to MS SQL was smooth
Read full review
Red Hat
I spoke on this topic today!
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Microsoft
We used Altiris and WSUS and in the beginning Altiris had the better admin interface than SCOM, but it is no longer the case as SCOM has refined their admin interface. Altiris still has better and more robust group assignments for management roles and those two other tools can better manage non Windows OS devices than SCOM but for a large enterprise Windows shop, if you can afford it, SCOM is the way to go.
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
Microsoft
  • It has allowed us to provide an Enterprise Event/Alert management solution to the Global company
  • It has taken a long time to get it to provide valuable alerts and information, lots of user resources and investment.
  • It assists with 24/7 monitoring and out of hours support
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