Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite

Red Hat Ansible automates server management, configuration updates, and deployments across our server infrastructure, keeping everything consistent, reducing human error, and saving time. Also provides detailed reports on what is done and uses role-based access controls to keep systems secure by controlling who can make changes.

Incentivized

Well suited scenarios - 1) Firewall Policy / Ruleset management 2) Where all the products are from Tufin like TOS ST, SC, SecureApp etc 3) Where customer focuses on ruleset compliance - USP violations, and other features Less suited - 1) Agnostic/distributed environment - Tough with integrate with 3rd party like CyberArk 2) FW recertification processes / exception process when complex process is included

Incentivized

• It reduces custom scripting efforts because everything can be scripted in simple, human-readable YAML playbooks.
• Not only servers, but also network devices, VMs, Containers, Kubernetes clusters, etc., can be automated via Ansible, showcasing its extensive list of supported devices.
• It is agentless, which makes it lightweight and allows for easy integration into CI/CD and GitOps pipelines.
• Many Tier-1 telcos use Ansible for Day 0/1/2 automation of RAN, transport, and core infrastructure (e.g., network function lifecycle management, NE configuration push, patching VNFs).

Incentivized

• Firewall management
• Compliance reports
• Unused rules and optimization
• Policy Automation

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

• Palo Alto Networks Integration
• Better/more user friendly api for integration with ticketing systems
• Web UI structure is not user-friendly

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

I spoke on this topic today!

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

1) Fairly okay overall but definitely needs improvement overall Vs the other products available in the market like Palo Alto XSOAR 2) Cost wise okay at the beginning but when client demands add-ons/ more features/customization tailored to their needs, Tufin Orchestration Suite recommends RFE / custom costs/development costs 3) USP feature is cool to use overall Vs FireMon 4) Tufin ProServ needs to buckle-up/Support compared to other competitors in the market

Incentivized

• 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..)

Incentivized

• I think if you correctly configure your SIEM, you don't need Tufin. You can correlate a lot of things for firewalls.

Incentivized