Discover the top alternatives and competitors to AWS Systems Manager based on the interviews we conducted with its users.
The top alternative solutions include Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform.
The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.
Amazon Web Services (AWS) Alternatives Report
Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Amazon Web Services (AWS), and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Microsoft Intune excels in managing Windows 10, with strengths in Azure integration and security. In comparison, AWS Systems Manager enhances infrastructure efficiency with its automation capabilities. Tech buyers may choose Intune for Office 365 integration, while AWS Systems Manager offers significant cost benefits for existing AWS users.
Microsoft Intune features a straightforward setup cost favorable for small to medium enterprises, while AWS Systems Manager provides scalable options that may result in higher initial costs depending on the complexity and scale of implementation.
Microsoft Intune features a straightforward setup cost favorable for small to medium enterprises, while AWS Systems Manager provides scalable options that may result in higher initial costs depending on the complexity and scale of implementation.
Microsoft Configuration Manager excels in application deployment, patch management, and system compliance for IT infrastructures. In comparison, AWS Systems Manager offers superior cloud-native integration and easy integration with AWS services, making it ideal for organizations within the AWS ecosystem.
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves higher setup costs compared to AWS Systems Manager, which offers more budget-friendly initial pricing, highlighting a key difference in their financial entry points.
Microsoft Configuration Manager involves higher setup costs compared to AWS Systems Manager, which offers more budget-friendly initial pricing, highlighting a key difference in their financial entry points.
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform appeals with its competitive pricing and wide community support. In comparison, AWS Systems Manager offers extensive features ideal for AWS-heavy environments. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform requires better documentation; meanwhile, AWS Systems Manager would benefit from a simpler interface for complex features.
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform requires a higher upfront setup cost compared to AWS Systems Manager, which offers a relatively budget-friendly implementation. This makes AWS Systems Manager more appealing to cost-conscious organizations.
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform requires a higher upfront setup cost compared to AWS Systems Manager, which offers a relatively budget-friendly implementation. This makes AWS Systems Manager more appealing to cost-conscious organizations.
BigFix excels in asset discovery, patch management, and endpoint security, making it ideal for comprehensive IT infrastructure control. In comparison, AWS Systems Manager's automation, configuration management, and operational data insights cater to diverse IT needs, appealing to those seeking advanced features and cloud integration.
BigFix involves high setup costs with detailed but complex deployment, while AWS Systems Manager offers lower initial setup costs with a more straightforward installation process.
BigFix involves high setup costs with detailed but complex deployment, while AWS Systems Manager offers lower initial setup costs with a more straightforward installation process.
VMware Aria Automation offers strong integration with VMware's ecosystem and a user-friendly interface. In comparison, AWS Systems Manager provides a comprehensive feature set focusing on security and configuration management. VMware Aria Automation has competitive pricing, while AWS Systems Manager justifies higher costs with its robust scalability and advanced features.
VMware Aria Automation has higher initial setup costs reported by users, while AWS Systems Manager is praised for its lower, more manageable setup expenses.
VMware Aria Automation has higher initial setup costs reported by users, while AWS Systems Manager is praised for its lower, more manageable setup expenses.
Red Hat Satellite excels in patch management and system provisioning, while AWS Systems Manager leads in automation, monitoring, and integration within AWS. In comparison, users may favor Red Hat Satellite for its documentation. AWS Systems Manager is chosen for its easier deployment, robust support, and pay-as-you-go pricing.
HashiCorp Terraform's multi-cloud support and cost-effectiveness make it a strong choice for diverse infrastructure. In comparison, AWS Systems Manager offers richer features like configuration automation and operational insights. HashiCorp Terraform excels in deployment ease, while AWS Systems Manager requires complex setup but shines in resource management.
HashiCorp Terraform has a higher setup cost, whereas AWS Systems Manager provides a more cost-effective setup option. Pricing differences highlight Terraform's advanced infrastructure-as-code capabilities and AWS Systems Manager's simpler automation and management features.
HashiCorp Terraform has a higher setup cost, whereas AWS Systems Manager provides a more cost-effective setup option. Pricing differences highlight Terraform's advanced infrastructure-as-code capabilities and AWS Systems Manager's simpler automation and management features.
BMC TrueSight Server Automation excels in granular access controls and compliance management. In comparison, AWS Systems Manager offers seamless integration with AWS services and extensive automation. BMC provides strong compliance, while AWS delivers broader integration and straightforward deployment with competitive pricing and high ROI.
SUSE Manager excels in cost-effectiveness and support, with strong Linux management. In comparison, AWS Systems Manager offers advanced features and flexibility, making it superior for diverse environments. Tech buyers might choose SUSE Manager for its Linux-specific efficiency and AWS Systems Manager for extensive cross-platform capabilities and integrations.
Chef offers robust automation and customizability. In comparison, AWS Systems Manager excels in seamless AWS integration and comprehensive features. Chef provides lower initial costs and quicker ROI, while AWS Systems Manager offers valuable extensive features for larger environments. Chef is ideal for smaller needs; AWS Systems Manager suits complex setups.
Chef has a higher initial setup cost, while AWS Systems Manager offers a more affordable setup option. Chef's advanced features contrast with AWS Systems Manager's straightforward and cost-effective initial implementation.
Chef has a higher initial setup cost, while AWS Systems Manager offers a more affordable setup option. Chef's advanced features contrast with AWS Systems Manager's straightforward and cost-effective initial implementation.
Perforce Puppet provides robust configuration management ideal for on-premise solutions. In comparison, AWS Systems Manager offers seamless AWS integration, beneficial for cloud operations. Tech buyers may prefer Puppet for pricing clarity, while others might choose Systems Manager for its cloud-native features.
Perforce Puppet involves a higher setup cost, providing extensive configuration options, while AWS Systems Manager offers a more economical setup, appealing to users seeking cost-effective and automated management solutions.
Perforce Puppet involves a higher setup cost, providing extensive configuration options, while AWS Systems Manager offers a more economical setup, appealing to users seeking cost-effective and automated management solutions.
OpenText ZENworks Configuration Management is often chosen for its comprehensive endpoint management, automated patches, and cost-effective pricing models. In comparison, AWS Systems Manager is preferred for centralized operational data, cloud integration, and ease of deployment, appealing particularly to those seeking advanced features and capabilities.
