Updated March 17, 2023
Difference Between Ansible vs Puppet vs Chef
Ansible, Puppet, and Chef are configuration tools. Michael DeHaan developed ansible in 2012. It is an orchestration tool. Ansible creates consistent environments. Ansible is written in Python, PowerShell, Shell, and Ruby. A puppet was developed by Puppet Labs, created by Luke Kanies in 2005. Puppet is used for long time deployments. Puppet has good documentation and supports more platforms. Puppet is faster to work, and this is the reason for employers to love Puppet. Adam Jacob developed the chef in 2009. The chef can integrate with cloud-based platforms. A chef can configure and maintain the company’s servers. Chef supports Linux and Microsoft Windows.
Head to Head Comparison between Ansible vs Puppet vs Chef (Infographics)
Below are the top 18 differences between Ansible and Puppet and Chef:
Key Differences Between Ansible vs Puppet vs Chef
Let us look at the key differences as below:
- Ansible is the latest configuration tool developed next to Chef, and the older one is a Puppet. Hence the users find it easier to understand Ansible, and Puppet is hard to follow.
- Ansible is written in Python supported with YAML scripts. Puppet is written in Ruby that supports Domain Specific Language with Ruby. The chef is written in Ruby with DSL and has prototype programming.
- There is only one active node for its configuration, whereas Puppet and Chef follow master-slave architecture.
- In order to configure nodes, Ansible uses ssh running system. In Puppet and Chef, only the client can configure the machine and server for the system.
- For configuration, Ansible does not use Virtual Machines. Puppet requires a client certificate for client system configuration. In Chef, a workstation that is a container of all configurations passes the configuration to the master.
- The configuration settings are easy in Ansible. In Puppet and Chef, this is a hectic process.
- YAML language is used to manage the configuration in Ansible. Puppet uses Puppet DSL, and Ruby DSL is used in Chef.
- One need not be a programmer to manage configuration in Ansible. Since Puppet and Ruby are used in the other two tools, one should know to a program to manage the tools.
- YAML language is easy to learn, and hence mastering Ansible configuration is easy. While others are not easy, and hence managing configuration using Puppet and Chef becomes a difficult task.
- Ansible has the remote facility for the execution of configuration while Puppet and Chef take time for the execution.
- The configuration is pushed to the nodes by a server in Ansible. In Puppet and Chef, the client machine has to pull the configuration to the nodes.
- Ansible is comparatively new when compared with Puppet and Chef.
- The initial setup in Ansible is easy, while it is difficult in Puppet and Chef.
- The focus is mainly on computer automation in Ansible. In Puppet, it checks the progress of Puppet DSL over Ruby. DevOps automation is the focus of Chef.
- Configurations are distributed to all nodes by a push and pull method in Ansible. In Puppet, there is only a push process. Chef supports only the pull process.
- It is better to install root access ssh and python for the proper workflow in Ansible. In Puppet and Chef, python ssh and are not needed.
- Ansible has a secured environment when compared to Puppet and Chef.
- The price of Ansible is lower when compared with other tools. The chef’s price is lower than the Puppet. Puppet is costlier among all three.
Comparison Table
Let’s discuss the top comparison between Ansible vs Puppet vs Chef.
| Ansible | Puppet | Chef |
| A programmer is not needed to manage this tool. | A programmer who knows Puppet DSL is needed to manage Puppet. | A Ruby programmer is needed to manage the Chef tool. |
| Configuration execution is easy to process. | Configuration execution is not easy to process when compared with Ansible. | Configuration execution is not easy to process. |
| We can call Ansible as immature. | Puppet is old and mature. | The chef is also mature than Ansible. |
| Ansible does not have many features. | The features in Puppet are more. | Chef has many features as Ansible. |
| Ansible can’t be used for large enterprises and is used for temporary deployments. | Puppet manages large enterprises for their infrastructure and is used for longer-term deployments. | The chef does manage large enterprises and is known for its reliability. |
| Ansible points out the errors that happened during the installation. | Errors are not pointed out in Puppet during installation that makes the process difficult. | The installation process is difficult in Chef because errors are not shown. |
| The communication system is faster. | A communication system is slower. | The communication process is very slow. |
| The scaled environment is slowed down during communication with ssh. | During scale deployment, due to large DSL code, scaling becomes difficult. | Chef also faces issues during the scaling environment due to its large code. |
| If the primary node goes down, the secondary node takes up the task. | When the master fails, another master takes up the position. Basically, it is a multi-master system. | There is a backup server if the primary server goes down in Chef. |
| We can say Ansible as administrator oriented. | Puppet is based on its system administrator. | The chef is mainly developer-oriented. |
| Ansible has a procedural style of coding. | Puppet has a declarative style. | Chef follows procedural style coding. |
| Ansible does not have master architecture and hence no extra servers. | Due to its master architecture, the extra server has to be run. | Chef also requires an extra server to run the master server. |
| Maintenance is not a tedious task. | Maintenance of all extra servers has to be done. | High maintenance is required. |
| Ansible is more popular. | Puppet is not much popular. | The chef is not as popular as Ansible. |
| GUI is underdeveloped in Ansible. | GUI is better in Puppet. | GUI is good in Chef. |
| Documentation is not that great as Ansible is relatively new. | Documentation is good. | Documentation is strong. |
| Applications are easily deployed using Ansible. | App deployment is not that easy. | A chef does not perform app deployment. |
| Multiple servers query each other. | Querying between servers is not easy. | Querying is not done in Chef. |
Puppet and Chef mainly focus on configuration while Ansible does the orchestration. Ansible servers need Unix/Linux and windows to work on, while Puppet and Chef can work mainly on Unix and Linux. Ansible is growing fast, and the community support is big.
Recommended Articles
This is a guide to Ansible vs Puppet vs Chef. Here we discuss the key differences with infographics and comparison table. You can also go through our other suggested articles to learn more –
