We performed a comparison between Automic Continuous Delivery Director and Spinnaker 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."Its ability to automate release deployments, streamline release scope, and reduce the cost of and time for deployment."
"CDD is primarily used for showing end users (managers, business teams, project managers, and release managers) what is happening with each release. The status and reporting features are very important. Automation reduces time to deploy. It also allows us to do more with releases and testing prior to production, better guaranteeing a smooth deployment."
"The most valuable feature for me is the fact that you can easily design a pipeline to promote applications from a development environment up to a production environment, and the team can become autonomous in designing those pipelines."
"The second valuable aspect is its capability to drive external systems like deployment automation engines or to integrate with Agile Central."
"The most valuable features of Automic Continuous Delivery Director are the UI, release planning, and tracking, and you can do your soft and hard freeze through CDP."
"Its extensive range of available connectors eliminates the need for manual code writing when implementing solutions, thus reducing coding efforts."
"There is a good community around the product that makes troubleshooting possible."
"The most valuable feature of Spinnaker is the rollback."
"Reporting and dashboarding could be improved. Release pipelines should be creatable via templates as well as easily integrable/chained together. Visual navigation could also be improved when the pipelines become too large."
"Automic Continuous Delivery Director can improve the integrations. We have 25 but would like more."
"We would like to have a more user-friendly interface. It is already very friendly, but as soon as you start to have many applications with many tasks, the applications should be easier to manipulate on the screen."
"We have rolled out the SAFe model, but what we would like to have is better integration with Agile Central, for instance, or at least at the plugin level, where we would select only certain stories instead of many stories in the sprint."
"The product's development has been stopped. It focuses on maintaining existing products."
"CDD and RA should be two modules in the same product. They do not automatically “talk” to each other. and they require endpoint definition."
"Log-wise, we need to understand why something has failed so that we can understand and try to fix it the moment the issue is reported. The solution could use more robust monitoring."
"Spinnaker's configuration setup is too complicated and should be made easy."
More Automic Continuous Delivery Director Pricing and Cost Advice →
Automic Continuous Delivery Director is ranked 14th in Release Automation with 5 reviews while Spinnaker is ranked 7th in Release Automation with 2 reviews. Automic Continuous Delivery Director is rated 8.0, while Spinnaker is rated 9.6. The top reviewer of Automic Continuous Delivery Director writes "An automation solution to automate the entire release process but lacks development". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Spinnaker writes "Good integrations, a helpful user community, and good reliability". Automic Continuous Delivery Director is most compared with , whereas Spinnaker is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, AWS CodeDeploy, UrbanCode Deploy and Octopus Deploy. See our Automic Continuous Delivery Director vs. Spinnaker 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.
