We performed a comparison between BlueCat Gateway and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The ability to develop a kiosk-like solution for in-person assistance is crucial."
"We found IP and Network Discovery the most valuable features of BlueCat Gateway. Our team found it very easy to build, verify, and validate APIs in BlueCat Gateway, mainly if the users have a background in development and APIs. Our team found that BlueCat Gateway answers our needs well."
"Ansible Tower offers use a UI where we can see all the pushes that have gone into the server."
"There are so many models that I don't have to create one."
"It increases our company's efficiency, automating all the simple tasks which used to take hours of somebody's time."
"The solution can scale."
"The most valuable features of the solution are automation and patching."
"Ansible Tower provides a GUI, which is an enhancement, and a well-liked feature by operation teams."
"The solution is very simple to use."
"The user interface is well-built and very easy to navigate around."
"One area for improvement in BlueCat Gateway is the time it takes to fill in the dropdown in the UI of the solution because the speed with which the data loads isn't that fast. It would be better if you didn't have to wait for old items to load before seeing the first data."
"My most significant concern is that the documentation has problems."
"On the Dashboard, when you view a template run, it shows all the output. There is a search filter, but it would be nice to able to select one server in that run and then see all that output from just that one server, instead of having to do the search on that one server and find the results."
"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."
"For Ansible Tower, there are three tiers with ten nodes. I would like them to expand those ten nodes to 20, because ten nodes is not enough to test on."
"Additional features could be added."
"The solution requires some Linux knowledge."
"The solution is slightly expensive, and its pricing could be improved."
"The support could be better."
"What I would like to see is a refined Dashboard to see, when I log in: Here are all my jobs, here are how many times they've executed; some kind graphical stitching-together of the workflows and jobs, and how they're connected. Also, those "failed hosts," what does that mean? We have a problem, a failed host can be anything. Is SSH the reason it failed? Is the job template why it failed? It doesn't really distinguish that."
More Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
BlueCat Gateway is ranked 9th in Network Automation with 2 reviews while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is ranked 2nd in Network Automation with 58 reviews. BlueCat Gateway is rated 9.0, while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of BlueCat Gateway writes "Simple to use, straightforward to deploy, and provides good support and documentation". 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". BlueCat Gateway is most compared with , 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 BlueCat Gateway vs. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform report.
See our list of best Network Automation vendors.
We monitor all Network 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.