We performed a comparison between Automic Continuous Delivery Automation and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Release Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It gives us good feedback on visualizations and on how our processes have progressed."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to see which problems have been resolved from deployment."
"The main benefit is you can deploy everything with it."
"The metrics gathered after deployment, for example, the rate of success versus the rate of failure."
"The IT process automation is the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"The event monitor is very good. You can monitor when the file is created so you can pick up the file once it's done."
"I think on a day-to-day basis, it has increased the capacity to deploy. We don't have to wait for someone to do something."
"Gives people insight into what's happening during the deployment."
"It increases our company's efficiency, automating all the simple tasks which used to take hours of somebody's time."
"It is very easy to use, and there is less room for error."
"This solution allows us to stitch a lot of different parts of the workflow together."
"The biggest thing I liked about Ansible is the check mode so that we can verify, after we've pushed, that the config there is actually what we intended."
"Being a game-changer in configuration management software is what has made Ansible so popular and widespread. Much of IT is based on SSH direct connectivity with a need for running infrastructure in an agentless way, and that has been a big plus. SSH has become a great security standard for managing servers. The whole thing has really become an out-of-the-box solution for managing a Unix estate."
"Installing it is a PIP command. So, it's pretty easy. It is a one liner."
"The automation is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is very simple to use."
"At the moment, the version that we are using (version 12.0), the environment is complex with multiple installations. Therefore, the monitoring is not scalable, but this should be improved in 12.1 and 12.2."
"There needs to be better error handling and error descriptions. It should be more clear what the errors are and what we can do to fix them."
"key thing is support for cloud-based deployment. That is lacking."
"Not a perfect ten because the user interface is brand new and it needs improvement."
"The dashboard should allow you to see the current state of packages in each environment, not only on an individual application basis, but across the entire application platform."
"I would like to see more support for WebSphere."
"There is an issue with the stability in the tool. The process of agent will stop, then the monitoring agent can't be recognized because the process is running, but you can talk with the system."
"The stability of the solution can be improved."
"What I'm trying to figure out, personally, is, when doing mass updates, how I can parallelize that a little bit better. It seems right now - and maybe, it's a shortcoming on my end - that I run through one set of servers, and then another set of servers, ad then another set of servers, but it seems like I could throw a lot of these checks out. Different types of servers, like web servers and DB servers, if I could parallelize that a little bit to make everything run a little bit more efficiently, that would help."
"What we need is model-driven, declarative software infrastructure management. However, things tend to break with new versions, requiring a lot of work to fix…The focus should be on improving the support for Ansible in the area of AI coding."
"Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is not the best at server provisioning. Terraform is better."
"The solution is slightly expensive, and its pricing could be improved."
"It needs better documentation."
"Documentation could be improved. Many times, if I'm looking for something, I have to Google it in a lot of places, then figure out what the best approach will be. There are some best practices documents, but they don't give you the information."
"Accessibility. Ansible uses a CLI by default. Those accustomed to it can find their way and adopt the YAML files easily over time. But, some users are more comfortable using UIs..."
"Improvements should be made in terms of execution speed, which is, I believe, the most lacking feature. Aside from that, re-triggering a failed task is another useful feature."
More Automic Continuous Delivery Automation Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Automic Continuous Delivery Automation is ranked 17th in Release Automation while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is ranked 3rd in Release Automation with 58 reviews. Automic Continuous Delivery Automation is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Automic Continuous Delivery Automation writes "Reduces our time to market considerably with automated and consistent results". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform writes "Capable of broad integrations with easy-to-operate infrastructure and user controls". Automic Continuous Delivery Automation is most compared with Nolio Release Automation and UrbanCode Deploy, whereas Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is most compared with Red Hat Satellite, Microsoft Configuration Manager, VMware Aria Automation, Microsoft Azure DevOps and Microsoft Intune. See our Automic Continuous Delivery Automation vs. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform report.
See our list of best Release Automation vendors.
We monitor all Release Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.