Microsoft System Center vs. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Microsoft System Center
Score 7.4 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft System Center Suite is a family of IT management software for network monitoring, updating and patching, endpoint protection with anti-malware, data protection and backup, ITIL- structured IT service management, remote administration and more. It is available in two editions: standard and datacenter. Datacenter provides unlimited virtualization for high density private clouds, while standard is for lightly or non-virtualized private cloud workloads.
$1,323
per month
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 CenterRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Editions & Modules
Standard Edition
$1323
Datacenter Edition
$3607
Basic Tower
5,000
per year
Enterprise Tower
10,000
per year
Premium Tower
14,000
per year
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Microsoft System CenterAnsible
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 CenterRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Considered Both Products
Microsoft System Center

No answer on this topic

Ansible
Chose Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is more platform agnostic which allows users in multi-OS environment to maintain configuration and manage drift.
Features
Microsoft System CenterRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Configuration Management
Comparison of Configuration Management features of Product A and Product B
Microsoft System Center
-
Ratings
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
8.3
145 Ratings
3% above category average
Infrastructure Automation00 Ratings9.0139 Ratings
Automated Provisioning00 Ratings8.5136 Ratings
Parallel Execution00 Ratings8.5129 Ratings
Node Management00 Ratings8.5121 Ratings
Reporting & Logging00 Ratings7.4133 Ratings
Version Control00 Ratings8.0117 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Microsoft System CenterRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies

No answers on this topic

HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.8 out of 10
Enterprises

No answers on this topic

HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.8 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Microsoft System CenterRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(21 ratings)
9.3
(214 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
9.6
(5 ratings)
Usability
9.0
(2 ratings)
8.3
(106 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
8.7
(5 ratings)
Support Rating
8.0
(1 ratings)
8.0
(5 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(2 ratings)
Ease of integration
-
(0 ratings)
8.6
(5 ratings)
User Testimonials
Microsoft System CenterRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Likelihood to Recommend
Microsoft
For companies with more than 10 Windows devices and needing to standardize the OS, AV, access, share resources, and install software. SCCM is the way to go. This software is unnecessary if the business is all remote users and not in an office-type setting. There are cloud offerings or none to accomplish what a business needs.
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 the grouping of devices by user.
  • Allows controlling updates being deployed to user devices.
  • Allows for the repurposing of machines by being able to load new or updated software on machines that already are in the system.
  • Allows us the ability to wipe a machine clean and restore it back to the configuration that was assigned the machine.
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
  • Needs web based storefront for requesting new software
  • Needs ability to manage the packaging work flow better
  • Sometimes is slow to download and there is no indication the entire catalog is being loaded, resulting in confused users not being able to find common software in the available list.
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
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
Microsoft
It is not user-friendly for the most part. With IT infrastructure, sometimes it cannot handle excess requests. Every few months, you will need an upgrade in terms of server resources to keep up with incoming alerts and requests. This does not happen all of the time, but it does happen when there are too many requests.
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
If I had to dislike something about the system it would be how much it changes once you upgrade. This could be more of a problem of mine since I get used to one way and don't like it when it changes so much. I am enjoying the newest update, but it is a mess when you are actually going through the upgrades.
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
No answers on this topic
Red Hat
I spoke on this topic today!
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Microsoft
We previously used a mix of FOG and Clonezilla to image machines. The biggest issues with these products is that changing one piece of the image required you to rebuild the entire image itself. These pieces of software also did not allow you to manage applications and Windows Updates, causing IT to have to constantly touch machines after they were imaged and update or manage them with a much more hands on approach.
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
  • We have been able to automate our patch management, firmware and other security concerns.
  • We have a standardized "image" ensuring our setup is consistent across the enterprise. This alone has saved us in time to support and time to understand how to use our desktops.
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