OpenText AccuRev vs. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
OpenText AccuRev
Score 4.0 out of 10
N/A
AccuRev, a software configuration management offering, is now owned and supported by Micro Focus since the December 2013 acquisition, and now by OpenText.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
OpenText AccuRevRed 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
OpenText AccuRevAnsible
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeOptionalNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
OpenText AccuRevRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Features
OpenText AccuRevRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Configuration Management
Comparison of Configuration Management features of Product A and Product B
OpenText AccuRev
-
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
OpenText AccuRevRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Small Businesses
Salt
Salt
Score 6.2 out of 10
HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Salt
Salt
Score 6.2 out of 10
HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.8 out of 10
Enterprises
Perforce P4
Perforce P4
Score 6.8 out of 10
HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.8 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
OpenText AccuRevRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Likelihood to Recommend
1.0
(4 ratings)
9.3
(214 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
6.1
(3 ratings)
9.6
(5 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
8.3
(106 ratings)
Availability
7.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 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
OpenText AccuRevRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform
Likelihood to Recommend
OpenText
Very slow and not intuitive; it would be my last choice for version control systems.The UI is a little confusing at times and seems a little outdated. It needs a lot of improvement. It is suited for small projects and fewer number of projects. But if there are huge projects and many projects to be maintained in a portfolio, its a little hard to manage.
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
OpenText
  • One place for most recent code with history, avoid any conflict/confusion among other team/members.
  • Stream/Workflow approach to control approval process betwen all the teams, which I couldn't find in other version control tools I worked.
  • Bundle our code in a small group (called, Issues in Accurev) to differentiate between different projects.
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
OpenText
  • Ability to zoom in/out for stream-view. We currently have many streams/substreams and unable to view the entire workflow. Zooming in/out would benefit.
  • Being a designer, I use Adobe Flash and SWF files. When updating the SWF files, Accurev does not see these files as being changed and you will be unable to promote. In order to push changes, you must totally rename the SWF file.
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
OpenText
We will renew because it is part of our build process.
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
OpenText
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
OpenText
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
OpenText
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
OpenText
No answers on this topic
Red Hat
I spoke on this topic today!
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
OpenText
In my view, accurev ranks very low compared to other tools I have used. Microsoft TFS is the best in the industry as of today as it's a complete ALM solution. It does code version, bug tracking, user story documentation, and has easy integration with other external tools supporting many languages. So I would definitely recommend TFS to anyone.
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
OpenText
  • Better team coordination.
  • Avoid confusion by having one place for all documentation and code.
  • Better project management by having different work streams.
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