Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager takes knowledge and research to properly configure. The length of time that the set up will take depends on the kind of technical architecture that your organization is using. The deployment of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager usually takes about 3 months to complete. This relatively long amount of time can make all the difference for companies that take substantial revenue hits when time is wasted implementing solutions.
Ansible’s setup is much simpler and less time consuming than Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager. Ansible requires the person setting it up to have a very basic knowledge of Linux coding. This person needs to create and run a simple one-line Linux command. That is all that is needed to get the program up and running. In less than an hour your organization can have Ansible supporting your applications. The speed at which Ansible can be configured gives it a clear advantage over Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager.
There is no set price for Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager. The overall price model is constantly being revised and changed. Furthermore, each individual company’s price model can differ based on a number of factors. Therefore, there is no baseline to look at when considering the monetary cost of this product.
The same cannot be said about Ansible’s price model. It is open source and absolutely free. The program by itself can be accessed and used by any user free of cost. Organizations that pay close attention to their budget would find Ansible to be a very attractive option. This is something with which Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager simply cannot compete.
Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is a fairly stable solution. It does not have the tendency to crash or freeze as some other products might. Ansible offers a solution which is also very stable. It does not require people to constantly attend to it in order to function properly. If the correct code is in place, it will run as it is supposed to.
Conclusion
Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager offers a stable and effective product. However, the advantages that Ansible offers seem to make it the more valuable and cost-effective solution.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
Microsoft Configuration Manager and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform compete in the IT management and automation market. Ansible appears to have an edge due to its agentless architecture and flexibility, appealing to diverse IT environments.Features: Microsoft Configuration Manager boasts effective software distribution, patch management, and compliance reporting to ensure secure and consistent systems. It excels in managing and deploying operating systems and applications across different...
Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager takes knowledge and research to properly configure. The length of time that the set up will take depends on the kind of technical architecture that your organization is using. The deployment of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager usually takes about 3 months to complete. This relatively long amount of time can make all the difference for companies that take substantial revenue hits when time is wasted implementing solutions.
Ansible’s setup is much simpler and less time consuming than Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager. Ansible requires the person setting it up to have a very basic knowledge of Linux coding. This person needs to create and run a simple one-line Linux command. That is all that is needed to get the program up and running. In less than an hour your organization can have Ansible supporting your applications. The speed at which Ansible can be configured gives it a clear advantage over Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager.
There is no set price for Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager. The overall price model is constantly being revised and changed. Furthermore, each individual company’s price model can differ based on a number of factors. Therefore, there is no baseline to look at when considering the monetary cost of this product.
The same cannot be said about Ansible’s price model. It is open source and absolutely free. The program by itself can be accessed and used by any user free of cost. Organizations that pay close attention to their budget would find Ansible to be a very attractive option. This is something with which Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager simply cannot compete.
Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is a fairly stable solution. It does not have the tendency to crash or freeze as some other products might. Ansible offers a solution which is also very stable. It does not require people to constantly attend to it in order to function properly. If the correct code is in place, it will run as it is supposed to.
Conclusion
Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager offers a stable and effective product. However, the advantages that Ansible offers seem to make it the more valuable and cost-effective solution.