We performed a comparison between Chef and Microsoft Azure DevOps 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."Chef can be scaled as needed. The Chef server itself can scale but it depends on the available resources. You can upgrade specific resources to meet the demand. Similarly, with clients, you can add as many clients as you need. Again, this depends on the server resources. If the server has enough resources, it can handle the number of servers required to manage the infrastructure. Chef can be scaled to meet the needs of the infrastructure being managed."
"The scalability of the product is quite nice."
"If you're handy enough with DSL and you can present your own front-facing interface to your developers, then you can actually have a lot more granular control with Chef in operations over what developers can perform and what they can't."
"Stable and scalable configuration management and automation tool. Installing it is easy. Its most valuable feature is its compliance, e.g. it's very good."
"I wanted to monitor a hybrid cloud environment, one using AWS and Azure. If I have to provision/orchestrate between multiple cloud platforms, I can use Chef as a one-stop solution, to broker between those cloud platforms and orchestrate around them, rather than going directly into each of the cloud-vendors' consoles."
"The most valuable feature is its easy configuration management, optimization abilities, complete infrastructure and application automation, and its superiority over other similar tools."
"We have had less production issues since using Chef to automate our provisioning."
"The product is useful for automating processes."
"The most valuable feature is the complete integration between test cases, pipelines, and issue management."
"My first impression of DevOps, after using Jira, is that it has a much better, more intuitive, and more user-friendly interface."
"The most valuable feature in automating our build and release processes with Azure DevOps is the scheduling capability."
"We use all the DevOps features and services, like reports, Boards, Pipelines, Artifactory, etc. The interface is interactive and intuitive. The platform visuals and workflow are straightforward in Azure DevOps."
"The features that have a significant impact on us include CI/CD, where we have full integration with the source code repository and Azure Pipelines."
"The simplicity and ease of use are two features that we have found to be most valuable."
"Stable and scalable solution for work planning and code collaboration. It's fast, and it offers a good user experience."
"We can eliminate some of the middleman processes."
"If only Chef were easier to use and code, it would be used much more widely by the community."
"Third-party innovations need improvement, and I would like to see more integration with other platforms."
"They could provide more features, so the recipes could be developed in a simpler and faster way. There is still a lot of room for improvement, providing better functionalities when creating recipes."
"Chef could get better by being more widely available, adapting to different needs, and providing better documentation."
"Vertical scalability is still good but the horizontal, adding more technologies, platforms, tools, integrations, Chef should take a look into that."
"I would like them to add database specific items, configuration items, and migration tools. Not necessarily on the builder side or the actual setup of the system, but more of a migration package for your different database sets, such as MongoDB, your extenders, etc. I want to see how that would function with a transition out to AWS for Aurora services and any of the RDBMS packages."
"I would rate this solution a nine because our use case and whatever we need is there. Ten out of ten is perfect. We have to go to IOD and stuff so they should consider things like this to make it a ten."
"It is an old technology."
"Incorporating security tools directly into DevOps is crucial, as many existing DevOps solutions lack robust security features."
"Proper Gantt charting should be a feature that is included because as it is now, we have to create it ourselves."
"If they could build up requirement traceability metrics, then it would be great."
"It is essential that you get buy-in from the top management down to everyone in the pipeline."
"Microsoft Azure DevOps should create some training materials."
"With an ecosystem that has been up and running for some time, you won't have the full-flexibility that you would have with a new ecosystem."
"Its price can also be reduced. It would be great if they are a little bit more competitive in terms of pricing because many open-source products are currently available in the market."
"In comparison to JIRA, I believe DevOps has very poor reporting and metrics support."
Chef is ranked 15th in Release Automation with 18 reviews while Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 1st in Release Automation with 127 reviews. Chef is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Chef writes "Easy configuration management, optimization abilities, and complete infrastructure and application automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Allows us to deploy code to production without releasing certain features immediately and agile project management capabilities offer resource-leveling". Chef is most compared with Jenkins, AWS Systems Manager, Microsoft Configuration Manager, SaltStack and BigFix, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, Rally Software and ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management. See our Chef vs. Microsoft Azure DevOps 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.
