Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform vs. TeamCity

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Ansible
Score 9.2 out of 10
N/A
The 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
TeamCity
Score 7.4 out of 10
N/A
TeamCity is a continuous integration server from Czeck company JetBrains.N/A
Pricing
Red Hat Ansible Automation PlatformTeamCity
Editions & Modules
Basic Tower
5,000
per year
Enterprise Tower
10,000
per year
Premium Tower
14,000
per year
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
AnsibleTeamCity
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
Red Hat Ansible Automation PlatformTeamCity
Features
Red Hat Ansible Automation PlatformTeamCity
Configuration Management
Comparison of Configuration Management features of Product A and Product B
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
8.6
Ratings
7% above category average
TeamCity
-
Ratings
Infrastructure Automation9.20 Ratings00 Ratings
Automated Provisioning8.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Parallel Execution8.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Node Management8.40 Ratings00 Ratings
Reporting & Logging7.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Version Control8.70 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Red Hat Ansible Automation PlatformTeamCity
Small Businesses
HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.5 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.5 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
Enterprises
HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.5 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Red Hat Ansible Automation PlatformTeamCity
Likelihood to Recommend
9.5
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
7.3
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
8.7
(0 ratings)
9.3
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
7.3
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
8.2
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
8.6
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Red Hat Ansible Automation PlatformTeamCity
Likelihood to Recommend
I'm going to say it is best suited for configuration management. Like I said, patching even with security, things of that nature. Probably less suited is hardware management, but Red Hat IBM/IBM has Terraform for that. So it's a trade off.
Read full review
TeamCity is well suited for an organization using continuous integration, meaning you release code to production often, and an agile project management system. There are free versions available for small teams and enterprise versions available for large teams with many different builds. TeamCity is probably overkill for basic e-commerce or blog website builds that do not require much development after the initial launch
Read full review
Pros
  • 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.
Read full review
  • Fully customizable build process. Each step of the build process can be parameterized and customized to address specific needs of particular applications. This allowed us to easily convert from a custom VM-based environment to our current Docker-based environment.
  • Manages large numbers of build agents seamlessly. This allows us to run multiple builds on many different applications in a most efficient manner.
  • Build steps can be managed in an arbitrary manner, allowing some parts of the process to proceed in parallel while restricting others to depend on completion of all relevant steps.
Read full review
Cons
  • Ability to tell when a task has already been done
  • yaml configuration can be annoying at times, perhaps a built in lint so yq isn't needed
  • the become feature should be able to be set to true globally without using args
Read full review
  • It is not plug and play thing
  • Need more specific configurations for smaller projects as well
  • Online help is less available
  • Basic implementation is easy but I think feature add on can be complex as it involve some language knowledge as well.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
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.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
Overall it's good but the new architecture can be complex. Improvements can be made in the Config as Code capabilities for managing Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform. Sometimes it can be difficult for those unfamiliar to understand the relationship between Projects/Credentials/Job Templates, etc.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Performance
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.
Read full review
TeamCity runs really well, even when sharing a small instance with other applications. The user interface adequately conveys important information without being overly bloated, and it is snappy. There isn't any significant overhead to build agents or unit test runners that we have measured.
Read full review
Support Rating
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.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
I spoke on this topic today!
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
As I said earlier, Red Hat Ansible remains a top choice because it is a perfect combination of multiple capabilities. Terraform is good in IAC but not in config automation. Puppet is well-suited for developers, but not for system administrators and infrastructure integrators. OpenShift and Kubernetes are generic automators only.
Read full review
Jenkins relies on being open source as the primary driver for its success. This low cost is a huge factor for many companies, both small and large. The professional, free tier of TeamCity offers a huge amount of growth before ever needing to pay anything. I personally also find the user experience of TeamCity to be much better, both from a look and feel, as well as from an out-of-the-box feature set perspective. The big selling feature of ADO is its native integration with Azure. TeamCity integrates very well with out-of-the-box .NET support and greatly simplifies our use of another diverse tooling outside of the Microsoft ecosystem.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • We are still early in our implementation and don't have much yet - but I can say that it has already improved the time it takes to deploy a new virtual server for us, as well as making them more consistent.
  • In working through what jobs are required, it has really improved the communication between our different teams
Read full review
  • TeamCity was a key contributor to our organization's adoption of Agile.
  • TeamCity made it possible to KILL "It works on my laptop" conversations with Developers. If it does not compile in TeamCity - the project is not deployable. TeamCity's easy to use interface made it possible to quickly adopt a "Deploy Only from TeamCity" policy, further ensuring TeamCity Builds were the gold-standard for well-configured source code.
Read full review
ScreenShots