We performed a comparison between OpenText Operations Orchestration and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Pega, Appian and others in Process Automation."It's very stable. If you ask me for the success rate metrics, it's more than 90% for both."
"It has reduced the time taken to go to market. In the past, we were struggling with building these integrations, but now the process has sped up and there is an added advantage of quick delivery. In addition, it is an agent-less solution, which provides more flexibility in terms of multiple options."
"The product is good functionality-wise. I am impressed with the tool's flexibility in customization."
"RBAC is great around Organizations and I can use that backend as our lab. Ingesting stuff into the JSON logs, into any sort of logging collector; it works with Splunk and there are other collectors as well. It supports Sumo and that helps, I can go create reports in Sumo Logic. Workflows are an interesting feature. I can collect a lot of templates and create a workflow out of them."
"It's nice to have the Dashboard where people can see it, have it report to our ELK stack. It's far more convenient, and we can trigger it with API and schedules, which is better than doing it with a whole bunch of scripts."
"Ansible Tower provides a GUI, which is an enhancement, and a well-liked feature by operation teams."
"There are no agents by default, so adding a new server is a matter of a couple lines of configuration (on a new server and the configuration master)."
"The API for exposing all our infrastructure services is the most valuable feature."
"The automation manager is very good."
"The most valuable features of the solution are automation and patching."
"I like the inventory management. It's a very nice, simple, concise way to keep all that data together. And the API allows us to use it even for things that are not Ansible."
"The tool's UI needs to be improved. It needs to have better administration features in future releases."
"There were a lot of scalability issues that we initially faced. Whenever I tried to deploy 100-200 endpoints, it became a huge challenge. We had to actually start using other tools like Tivoli Endpoint Management in order to patch the issues."
"The price is an area that should be addressed because the price is high."
"The solution must be made easier to configure."
"It should support more integration with different products."
"It needs better documentation."
"Accessibility. Ansible uses a CLI by default. Those accustomed to it can find their way and adopt the YAML files easily over time. But, some users are more comfortable using UIs..."
"The documentation for the installation step of deployment, OpenStack, etc., and these things have to be a bit more detailed."
"What I would like to see is a refined Dashboard to see, when I log in: Here are all my jobs, here are how many times they've executed; some kind graphical stitching-together of the workflows and jobs, and how they're connected. Also, those "failed hosts," what does that mean? We have a problem, a failed host can be anything. Is SSH the reason it failed? Is the job template why it failed? It doesn't really distinguish that."
"What I'm trying to figure out, personally, is, when doing mass updates, how I can parallelize that a little bit better. It seems right now - and maybe, it's a shortcoming on my end - that I run through one set of servers, and then another set of servers, ad then another set of servers, but it seems like I could throw a lot of these checks out. Different types of servers, like web servers and DB servers, if I could parallelize that a little bit to make everything run a little bit more efficiently, that would help."
"On the Dashboard, when you view a template run, it shows all the output. There is a search filter, but it would be nice to able to select one server in that run and then see all that output from just that one server, instead of having to do the search on that one server and find the results."
More OpenText Operations Orchestration Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText Operations Orchestration is ranked 17th in Process Automation with 24 reviews while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is ranked 1st in Configuration Management with 58 reviews. OpenText Operations Orchestration is rated 7.8, while Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of OpenText Operations Orchestration writes "HP OO blows away the competition, but has its fair share of flaws". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform writes "Capable of broad integrations with easy-to-operate infrastructure and user controls". OpenText Operations Orchestration is most compared with Control-M, Camunda, BigFix, Microsoft System Center Orchestrator and Appian, whereas Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is most compared with Red Hat Satellite, Microsoft Configuration Manager, VMware Aria Automation and Microsoft Azure DevOps.
We monitor all Process 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.
