We performed a comparison between Chef and Red Hat Satellite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Configuration Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."For the price, the features included with Microsoft are appealing."
"One of the most valuable aspects of Microsoft Intune is its seamless integration with Azure Active Directory, offering capabilities akin to Group Policy Objects."
"The stability is good."
"It's easy to manage and easy to configure."
"The most valuable feature for us is the security, including risk analysis and patch management."
"By using Microsoft Intune we can control which websites the users can go to and it provides a secure environment for our employees using their laptops that are having access from home. We have installed Intune to control the user's environment minimizing the chances of any hacking."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Intune is having all our devices compliant with our policies."
"I like the group policy management feature, which performs application monitoring and device enrollment."
"It has been very easy to tie it into our build and deploy automation for production release work, etc. All the Chef pieces more or less run themselves."
"We have had less production issues since using Chef to automate our provisioning."
"Deployment has become quick and orchestration is now easy."
"Chef is a great tool for an automation person who wants to do configuration management with infrastructure as a code."
"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."
"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."
"The product is useful for automating processes."
"Chef recipes are easy to write and move across different servers and environments."
"The product is convenient to use."
"Patch management is, for sure, most valuable. For license management and patch management, I would rate it a 10 out of 10."
"I like the integration with other tools."
"It plays a significant role in managing the lifecycle of our systems and ensures that we can effectively control and update the software versions to align with our organization's needs."
"The compliance auditing helped me a lot."
"It has been a stable solution...It is a totally scalable solution."
"Technical support has been good."
"The most valuable feature is the fact that you don't have to expose your mission-critical environment to the Internet. With the Satellite system in place, it acts as a barrier between your Red Hat infrastructure and the public Internet."
"We only have major classifications for iOS and Android, but there are different brands that have different cycles of updates. If they can fine-tune it to make it more brand-specific, that would be even better."
"It would be nice to have a location tracker for the mobile device management tool. I'm not sure if it exists but hasn't been configured or if it's missing, but we've been unable to utilize the location features."
"For an existing customer who has an SCCM, it would need to be upgraded to an MECM first before I can introduce Microsoft Intune."
"We would like to see support for Chrome and/or devices for Chromebooks."
"There can be delays in the deployment of new policies."
"It would be beneficial to have a more straightforward understanding of Intune's capabilities, presented in a simplified manner."
"There is room for improvement in integration and security as well."
"There are a few security features that are not available in Microsoft Intune, when compared to other products."
"The solution could improve in managing role-based access. This would be helpful."
"There appears to be no effort to fix the command line utility functionality, which is definitely broken, provides a false positive for a result when you perform the operation, and doesn't work."
"Chef could get better by being more widely available, adapting to different needs, and providing better documentation."
"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."
"The agent on the server sometimes acts finicky."
"There is a slight barrier to entry if you are used to using Ansible, since it is Ruby-based."
"I would also like to see more analytics and reporting features. Currently, the analytics and reporting features are limited. I'll have to start building my own custom solution with Power BI or Tableau or something like that. If it came with built-in analytics and reporting features that would be great."
"Third-party innovations need improvement, and I would like to see more integration with other platforms."
"Satellite should be bundled with Ansible Tower and the Ansible Automation platform. We face challenges from a security perspective because we have micro-segmentation in our network. For each server we provision, we have to set permissions to different ports so that the servers can communicate with Satellite. If I have a single server with Satellite and the Ansible Automation Platform, it would be easier to manage security issues instead of having two or three products on various servers."
"Red Hat Satellite's pricing needs improvement."
"Red Hat Satellite has a short life cycle and we constantly need to update."
"The product's automation capabilities need enhancement."
"Regarding the product's ability to support third-party tools, Red Hat doesn't support all the layers from the open-source version of Linux."
"There could be a feature to simplify the process without the requirement of any patch manager subscription."
"They could make it more easy to use and improve the GUI so that it's more intuitive."
"It wasn't easy in the beginning, and some effort was required to work it out. I already had the product documentation, but it was not well organized. It wasn't easy to follow. There were a lot of documents here and there."
Chef is ranked 15th in Configuration Management with 18 reviews while Red Hat Satellite is ranked 4th in Configuration Management with 21 reviews. Chef is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Satellite is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Chef writes "Useful for large infrastructure, reliable, but steep learning cureve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Satellite writes "A good product for managing patches and updates that could be more robust and up-to-date". Chef is most compared with Jenkins, AWS Systems Manager, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Microsoft Configuration Manager and AWS CloudFormation, whereas Red Hat Satellite is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, SUSE Manager, Microsoft Configuration Manager and AWS Systems Manager. See our Chef vs. Red Hat Satellite report.
See our list of best Configuration Management vendors.
We monitor all Configuration Management 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.