TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    Progress Chef

    Score6.5 out of 10
    N/AChef IT infrastructure automation suites were developed by Chef Software in Seattle and acquired by Progress Software in September 2020. The Chef Enterprise Automation Stack is an integrated suite of automation technologies presented as a solution for delivering change quickly, repeatedly, and securely over every application's lifecycle. The Chef Effortless Infrastructure Suit is an integrated suite of automation technologies to codify infrastructure, security, and compliance, as well as…N/A

    Ansible

    Score9.2 out of 10
    N/AThe 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
    Progress ChefAnsible
    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
    Progress ChefAnsible
    Free Trial
    NoNo
    Free/Freemium Version
    NoNo
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    NoNo
    Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
    Additional Details——
    More Pricing Information
    Community Pulse
    Progress ChefAnsible
    Considered Both Products
    Progress Software
    Chose Progress Chef
    Chef is the more developer-oriented of the three main tools in this space. It has a steeper learning curve as a result but it allows you to do more. Puppet seems to be more geared towards automated the management of the operating system. Ansible is an excellent tool but …
    Incentivized
    Chose Progress Chef
    We considered the three leading competitors in the field: Chef, Puppet and Ansible. Ansible is a very strong competitor and has a nice degree of flexibility in that it does not require a client install. Instead the configuration is delivered by SSH which is very simple. Puppet …
    Incentivized
    Chose Progress Chef
    Puppet Labs and CFEngine are also open source and competes with Chef. Chef has more support from the community with templates available for large scale IT deployments. RedHat Ansible is better suited when you are already using RedHat OS and OpenShift since it comes as it comes …
    Incentivized
    Chose Progress Chef
    We found that Chef was easy to use, and we liked the whole concept of recipes and cookbooks. We were using the concept of recipes and cookbooks for our SQL development, so Chef was a natural fit for our team members and environment. That whole paradigm is easy for everyone …
    Incentivized
    Chose Progress Chef
    I've mostly explained the differences between Ansible and Chef in my previous answers. I generally prefer Chef over Ansible because the platforms we use have very convenient cookbooks.
    Incentivized
    Chose Progress Chef
    Chef is easy to install and manage, and the learning curve is minimal, as most of the engineers are already aware of the syntax to configure services. With flexible crating recipes and cookbooks, Chef made our jobs easier, and also it integrates well with Puppet. Overall …
    Incentivized
    Chose Progress Chef
    Chef is something we have been using for a while, so it is the natural choice when training new engineers to maintain our systems. If I was to choose a configuration management tool now, I would pick Ansible mainly because of its agentless nature and YAML cookbook language …
    Incentivized
    Chose Progress Chef
    We believe Chef is a great tool for DevOp. It works really well with repository tools such as Bitbucket and artifactory. The other products we evaluated either were too pricey or did not have the support we needed for a company that was very vanilla with automation. We selected …
    Incentivized
    Chose Progress Chef
    We were evaluating Ansible as it was agent less, SSH based, simple to use and is completely based on SSH protocol. As and when the servers count increase the performance might degrade. One main disadvantage with Ansible is it is more suitable for linux based systems where SSH …
    Incentivized
    Chose Progress Chef
    I really found that Chef to be much friendlier and innovative than Puppet. There is an opinion in the DevOps community that says that Chef is friendlier to programmers whereas Puppet is friendlier to system administrators. This might be true, as I do come from development …
    Incentivized
    Chose Progress Chef
    Chef is good for organizations with many servers, because of the client-server approach. I guess Ansible can be used for some 20-40 servers, just ssh and run the playbook. Chef is in ruby which is a really simple to learn language as opposed to competitiors.
    Incentivized
    Chose Progress Chef
    Ansible and salt stack seem to be the new cool kids on the block because they are easier to setup and manage across smaller teams. I think the use of puppet is dying down in favor for these new technologies. I would like to see chef use cases with simpler implementation.
    Incentivized
    Red Hat
    Chose Ansible
    It provides better RBAC and security also it is written in python and uses yaml which is a lower barrier of entry for new admins without a lot of programming experience.
    Incentivized
    Chose Ansible
    It was much simpler to deploy and use Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform in our enterprise environment. Red Hat has great training to get our users up to speed. YAML is easy to write (although watch out for spacing) and run playbooks. We can easily generate infrastructure …
    Incentivized
    Chose Ansible
    Chef is something that was used previously by our head engineer and is quite similar to Ansible. They're both great configuration management tools. However, since Ansible is agent-less, we decided to switch for the convenience and quick-start nature of Ansible. Along with that …
    Incentivized
    Chose Ansible
    • Ansible is much simpler to get up and running with than Chef, as it requires no infrastructure or agent process or any configuration on the target machine. All you need is SSH access! However, you lose the capabilities that Chef server offers such as data bags (centralized data …
    Incentivized
    Chose Ansible
    I have used Puppet, Chef during my career and Ansible seems to be the most efficient tool by far, in terms of its implementation, configuration and ease of use.
    Incentivized
    Chose Ansible
    All three of these competitors are agent based. I did not want an additional service that needed to run absolutely everywhere. I also did not want to maintain a load balanced cluster of master servers that grows in resource requirements as your infrastructure scales.
    Incentivized
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    100%
    Would buy again
    6 Answers
    99%
    Would buy again
    181 Answers
    Delivers good value for the price
    100%
    Delivers good value for the price
    6 Answers
    97%
    Delivers good value for the price
    148 Answers
    Happy with the feature set
    100%
    Happy with the feature set
    6 Answers
    98%
    Happy with the feature set
    179 Answers
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    100%
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    6 Answers
    97%
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    112 Answers
    Implementation went as expected
    100%
    Implementation went as expected
    6 Answers
    91%
    Implementation went as expected
    140 Answers
    Features
    Progress ChefAnsible
    Configuration Management
    Comparison of Configuration Management features of Progress Chef and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
    Feature
    Progress Chef
    -
    Ratings
    Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
    8.6
    44 Ratings
    7% above category average
    Infrastructure Automation00 Ratings9.244 Ratings
    Automated Provisioning00 Ratings8.841 Ratings
    Parallel Execution00 Ratings8.840 Ratings
    Node Management00 Ratings8.432 Ratings
    Reporting & Logging00 Ratings7.841 Ratings
    Version Control00 Ratings8.738 Ratings
    Best Alternatives
    Progress ChefAnsible
    Small Businesses
    Salt
    Score6.2 out of 10
    Salt
    Score6.2 out of 10
    Medium-sized Companies
    Perforce Puppet
    Score8.9 out of 10
    Perforce Puppet
    Score8.9 out of 10
    Enterprises
    AWS Config
    Score7 out of 10
    AWS Config
    Score7 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    Progress ChefAnsible
    Likelihood to Recommend
    8.9
    (18 ratings)
    9.5
    (108 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.0
    (3 ratings)
    Usability
    7.3
    (1 ratings)
    7.3
    (1 ratings)
    Performance
    9.4
    (5 ratings)
    8.7
    (5 ratings)
    Support Rating
    7.7
    (3 ratings)
    7.3
    (3 ratings)
    Implementation Rating
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.2
    (1 ratings)
    Contract Terms and Pricing Model
    6.4
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    Ease of integration
    9.6
    (5 ratings)
    8.6
    (5 ratings)
    Professional Services
    9.1
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    Progress ChefAnsible
    Likelihood to Recommend
    Progress Software
    Chef is a fantastic tool for automating software deployments that aren't able to be containerized. It's more developer-oriented than its other competitors and thus allows you to do more with it. The Chef Infra Server software is rock-solid and has been extremely stable in our experience. I would definitely recommend its use if you're looking for an automation framework. And it also offers InSpec which is a very good tool for testing your infrastructure to ensure it deployed as intended.
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Pros
    Progress Software
    • Chef is great at deploying code to both small and large groups of servers.
    • We use chef to standup new servers as well as deploy updated code to existing servers and it does this very well.
    • Being able to make a change and have it push manually or automatically to any subset of servers has changed the landscape of how our IT teams operate.
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    Progress Software
    • Chef could do a better job with integration with other DevOps tools. Our company relies on Jenkins and Ansible, which took some development and convincing for plug-ins to be created/available.
    • It would be nice if kitchen didn't only have a vagrant/virtual-box prerequisite. Our company one day stop allowing virtual-box to run without special privileges, and that caused a lot of issues for people trying to do kitchen tests.
    • Chef could use more practice materials for the advanced certification badges. There was not a lot of guidance in what to study or examples of certain topics.
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Likelihood to Renew
    Progress Software
    No answers on this topic
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Usability
    Progress Software
    The suite of tools is very powerful. The ability to create custom modules allows for unlimited potential for managing all aspects of a system. However, there is pretty significant learning curve with the toolset. It currently takes approx 3-4 months for new engineers to feel comfortable with our implementation
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    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
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Performance
    Progress Software
    It loads quick enough for basically all our systems. Because we have this for local dev environments, speed isn't really a big issue here. Yes, depending on the system, sometimes it does take a relatively long time, but it's not an issue for me. One thing that is annoying is that if I want to make a small change to a cookbook and re-run the Chef client, I can't just make the change in the cache and run it. I have to do the whole process of updating the server.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Support Rating
    Progress Software
    Support for Chef is easily available for fee or through the open source community as most the issues you will face will have been addressed through the Chef developer community forums. The documentation for Chef is moderate to great and easily readable.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Implementation Rating
    Progress Software
    No answers on this topic
    Red Hat
    I spoke on this topic today!
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Alternatives Considered
    Progress Software
    We considered the three leading competitors in the field: Chef, Puppet and Ansible. Ansible is a very strong competitor and has a nice degree of flexibility in that it does not require a client install. Instead the configuration is delivered by SSH which is very simple. Puppet seems like it has fallen off the pace of the competition and lacked the strong community offered by Chef. We chose Chef because of the strong support by the company and the dynamic and deep community support.
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Contract Terms and Pricing Model
    Progress Software
    The pricing seemed inline with our products in this space. Nothing out of the ordinary in contract, term, or pricing structure
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Red Hat
    No answers on this topic
    Professional Services
    Progress Software
    The entire professional services team was great to work with. The curriculum was tailored to our specific use cases. The group we worked with were very responsive, listened to our feedback, was very easy to schedule and accommodate. I cannot say enough good things about our professional services experience
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Red Hat
    No answers on this topic
    Return on Investment
    Progress Software
    • Chef is a good tool for baselining servers. It will be a good ROI when there are huge number of servers. For less number of servers maintaining a master will be an over head.
    • One good ROI will be that the Operations Team also gets into agile and DevOps methodologies. Operational teams can start writing scripts/automations to keep their infra more stable and their application stack more reliable.
    • Implementation of Chef eliminates the manual mode of doing things and everyone aligns to automation mind set. It helps in change of culture.
    Incentivized
    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..)
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    ScreenShots