HashiCorp Terraform vs. Progress Chef

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
Terraform from HashiCorp is a cloud infrastructure automation tool that enables users to create, change, and improve production infrastructure, and it allows infrastructure to be expressed as code. It codifies APIs into declarative configuration files that can be shared amongst team members, treated as code, edited, reviewed, and versioned. It is available Open Source, and via Cloud and Self-Hosted editions.
$0
Progress Chef
Score 6.5 out of 10
N/A
Chef IT infrastructure automation suites were developed by Chef Software in Seattle and acquired by Progress Software in September 2020. The Chef Enterprise Automation Stack is an integrated suite of automation technologies presented as a solution for delivering change quickly, repeatedly, and securely over every application's lifecycle. The Chef Effortless Infrastructure Suit is an integrated suite of automation technologies to codify infrastructure, security, and compliance, as well as…N/A
Pricing
HashiCorp TerraformProgress Chef
Editions & Modules
Open Source
$0
Team & Governance
$20/user
per user/per month
Enterprise
Contact sales team
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
HashiCorp TerraformProgress Chef
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
YesNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
HashiCorp TerraformProgress Chef
Considered Both Products
HashiCorp Terraform
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
Dbt was fine, but you end up with an extremely bloated repo/project. Often where all of the models are the same, named similarly, and generally just doesn't adhere to the concept of DRY coding.
In Terraform we're able to template a lot of this work and dynamically generate …
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform is much better than Cloud Formation. For one, the language is just easier to use, but more importantly, the provider ecosystem is much better in HashiCorp Terraform than in Cloud Formation.
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform has Cloud agnostic capability to use with different cloud vendors and the ease of creating the code with minimal effort.
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
I'm beginning to look at Pulumi. In my opinion, it looks like it would be a good replacement for HashiCorp Terraform, and it has the advantage of configuration via scripting, rather than via HCL, which is HashiCorp Terraform configuration markup language. In my opinion, the …
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
We have used Vagrant to develop our application in a virtual box environment and prepare it to be packed with Packer. The image created from these two tools will be deployed by Terraform.

We are using Consul for service discovery and as a job locking so we don't have two jobs or …
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
CloudFormation is only for AWS so if you're trying to deploy to another cloud provider then Terraform is your product. Terraform has lots of public support so you can find answers to questions by Googling. CloudFormation is easy to view the resources/services that are …
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
Terraform was more preferred over ansible as it is considerably more intutive.
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
Actually both products work very well. We use Terraform for speed and Ansible for configuration management both products work really well together
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
Terraform is a large step ahead of the previous generation of infrastructure-as-code providers. I'd never go back to, e.g. Puppet or Chef, Ansible, etc. That said I think that Pulumi has a good chance of displaying it, in no small part because the Terraform language itself …
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
AWS CloudFormation is better if you just want to stick with AWS because it's integration with AWS is better, provides auto-rollback in case of failures, and has GUI to manage and view the stacks built. Terraform is better when we want to stay cloud-agnostic. Terraform is better …
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
I can't find these applications listed, but other IaC tools I have used include: AWS CloudFormation, Azure Resource Manager Templates, and GCP Cloud Deployment Templates. For a comparable tool, I have the most experience with CloudFormation.

Compared to CloudFormation, the first …
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
Chef and Terraform are not apples to apples because Chef is more focused on config management, whereas Terraform is more focused on provisioning. However, I can say that where they do overlap in configuration management is that Terraform is the preferred tool because it has an …
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
Terraform is the solid leader in the space. It allows you to do more then just provisioning within a pre-existing servers. It is more extensible and has more providers available than it competitors. It is also open source and more adopted by the community then some of the other …
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
Terraform is open source and has strong community support. It is cloud-agnostic versus competing products like AWS cloud formation, hence has a distinct advantage. The scripts once set up are easy for developers to administer during development, hence during production …
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
  • UI design and development always sticks when it comes to multiple or say 'n' number of same configurations.
  • It's very easy to download and execute
  • Provides cross platform support and it's reliable.
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
Terraform has made better choices in how their product works, is used over time, and can be integrated with.
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
Centralized and standard configuration. Ease of VM provisioning.
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
- Terraform syntax is much easier to read and learn than Cloud Formation. - Terraform already supports AWS as well as several other cloud providers. - Terraform is backed by a great and supportive open-source community.
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
Terraform shares the methodology of creating configuration files for your infrastructure with tools like CloudFormation. However, Terraform is cloud-agnostic unlike CloudFormation which is AWS specific.
Terraform can be used to maintain AWS and OpenStack clusters …
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
CloudFormation is the lingua franca of AWS. You certainly can't go wrong using it, but I like the syntax and open-source nature of Terraform. That's mostly a personal preference. I have not tried any other non-Amazon tools for provisioning AWS. And, of course, the AWS tools …
Chose HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform has more possibilities
Progress Chef
Chose Progress Chef
Chef is the more developer-oriented of the three main tools in this space. It has a steeper learning curve as a result but it allows you to do more. Puppet seems to be more geared towards automated the management of the operating system. Ansible is an excellent tool but …
Chose Progress Chef
We considered the three leading competitors in the field: Chef, Puppet and Ansible. Ansible is a very strong competitor and has a nice degree of flexibility in that it does not require a client install. Instead the configuration is delivered by SSH which is very simple. Puppet …
Chose Progress Chef
Puppet Labs and CFEngine are also open source and competes with Chef. Chef has more support from the community with templates available for large scale IT deployments. RedHat Ansible is better suited when you are already using RedHat OS and OpenShift since it comes as it comes …
Chose Progress Chef
Briefly looked into Puppet but ended up going with Chef because a colleague had experience with it instead. Didn't get far enough into a deployment to even really compare the two.
Chose Progress Chef
We found that Chef was easy to use, and we liked the whole concept of recipes and cookbooks. We were using the concept of recipes and cookbooks for our SQL development, so Chef was a natural fit for our team members and environment. That whole paradigm is easy for everyone …
Chose Progress Chef
I've mostly explained the differences between Ansible and Chef in my previous answers. I generally prefer Chef over Ansible because the platforms we use have very convenient cookbooks.
Chose Progress Chef
Chef is easy to install and manage, and the learning curve is minimal, as most of the engineers are already aware of the syntax to configure services. With flexible crating recipes and cookbooks, Chef made our jobs easier, and also it integrates well with Puppet. Overall …
Chose Progress Chef
Chef is something we have been using for a while, so it is the natural choice when training new engineers to maintain our systems. If I was to choose a configuration management tool now, I would pick Ansible mainly because of its agentless nature and YAML cookbook language …
Chose Progress Chef
To be honest I believe SaltStack would provide a very similar experience to Chef and would allow us to automate much of our operational tasks in the same way, however I feel that Chef is more conducive to a mixed environment of Windows and Linux servers. This is the primary …
Chose Progress Chef
We believe Chef is a great tool for DevOp. It works really well with repository tools such as bitbucket and artifactory. The other products we evaluated either were too pricey or did not have the support we needed for a company that was very vanilla with automation. We selected …
Chose Progress Chef
We were evaluating Ansible as it was agent less, SSH based, simple to use and is completely based on SSH protocol. As and when the servers count increase the performance might degrade. One main disadvantage with Ansible is it is more suitable for linux based systems where SSH …
Chose Progress Chef
I really found that Chef to be much friendlier and innovative than Puppet. There is an opinion in the DevOps community that says that Chef is friendlier to programmers whereas Puppet is friendlier to system administrators. This might be true, as I do come from development …
Chose Progress Chef
Chef is good for organizations with many servers, because of the client-server approach. I guess ansible can be used for some 20-40 servers, just ssh and run the playbook. Chef is in ruby which is a really simple to learn language as opposed to competitiors.
Chose Progress Chef
Chef was easier to setup than Puppet. It also has better Windows support and documentation. Reading through the Chef documentation gave good examples on how to configure things for Windows environments, however Puppet was a bit lacking in that regard. Puppet has better support …
Chose Progress Chef
Ansible and salt stack seem to be the new cool kids on the block because they are easier to setup and manage across smaller teams. I think the use of puppet is dying down in favor for these new technologies. I would like to see chef use cases with simpler implementation.
Features
HashiCorp TerraformProgress Chef
Configuration Management
Comparison of Configuration Management features of Product A and Product B
HashiCorp Terraform
7.9
Ratings
2% below category average
Progress Chef
-
Ratings
Infrastructure Automation9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Automated Provisioning8.70 Ratings00 Ratings
Parallel Execution6.20 Ratings00 Ratings
Node Management7.70 Ratings00 Ratings
Reporting & Logging7.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Version Control8.10 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
HashiCorp TerraformProgress Chef
Small Businesses
HashiCorp Vagrant
HashiCorp Vagrant
Score 10.0 out of 10
HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.5 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Ansible
Ansible
Score 9.2 out of 10
Ansible
Ansible
Score 9.2 out of 10
Enterprises
Ansible
Ansible
Score 9.2 out of 10
Ansible
Ansible
Score 9.2 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
HashiCorp TerraformProgress Chef
Likelihood to Recommend
8.4
(0 ratings)
8.9
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.1
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Performance
9.4
(0 ratings)
9.4
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
7.4
(0 ratings)
7.7
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
9.2
(0 ratings)
9.6
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
HashiCorp TerraformProgress Chef
Likelihood to Recommend
8 because it's currently best-in-class and is completely essential to use in contrast to not expressing your infrastructure as code. That said, new contenders are nipping at its heels, and I expect stronger tools to emerge in the coming years. Hopefully the Terraform team is able to keep pace.
Read full review
Chef is a very nice tool for establishing and maintaining a consistent configuration across a range of servers. In addition, Automate allows the continued monitoring and maintenance of servers so they don't drift from established standards. Overall, it deals very well with complex systems. Chef is slightly less applicable for a micro-services approach where the servers are replicated from a simple and known starting point.
Read full review
Pros
  • Terraform is cloud agnostic. Just select the suitable provider for the cloud and it will do the job.
  • Templating is possible to make the Terraform templates reusable.
  • Variables can be created to make the templates generic so that it can be reused for different environments or resources.
Read full review
  • Chef is very easy to learn. Written in ruby, Chef code is high enough level for non-ruby coders to get a general idea of what the script is doing.
  • Chef can be a one stop shop for writing code, testing infrastructure, and deployment of applications.
  • The Chef support team is very helpful in their auto manager support as well as active support in their Slack channels from development engineers & architects.
Read full review
Cons
  • The errors generated by the plan and preview commands are pretty cryptic, it can be hard for newcomers to the scripting language to understand how to address problems.
  • Access controls around workspaces is limited which makes it harder to secure reduce the scope of teams ability.
  • Analytics around user usage, applies and plans would be helpful for managemenet.
Read full review
  • One main concern with Chef is the maintainability of Chef master.
  • The Chef-client should be installed on every node we want to do any automation.
  • It is mostly Ruby and there's a learning curve. Need to understand the fundamentals of Chef very throughly to play around with attributes, templates etc etc.
  • The Chef-client agent needs to be run on the nodes frequently to update the details of it state to master. And also to index the nodes based on tags.
Read full review
Usability
I love Terraform and I think it has done some great things for people that are working to automate their provisioning processes and also for those that are in the process of moving to the cloud or managing cloud resources. There are some quirks to HCL that take a little bit of getting used to and give picking up Terraform a little bit of a learning curve, thus the rating
Read full review
The suite of tools is very powerful. The ability to create custom modules allows for unlimited potential for managing all aspects of a system. However, there is pretty significant learning curve with the toolset. It currently takes approx 3-4 months for new engineers to feel comfortable with our implementation
Read full review
Performance
Terraform's performance is quite amazing when it comes to deployment of resources in AWS. Of course, the deployment times depend on various parameters like the number of resources to deploy and different regions to deploy. Terraform cannot control that. The only minor drawback probably shows up when a terraform job is terminated mid way. Then in many cases, time-consuming manual cleanup is required.
Read full review
It loads quick enough for basically all our systems. Because we have this for local dev environments, speed isn't really a big issue here. Yes, depending on the system, sometimes it does take a relatively long time, but it's not an issue for me. One thing that is annoying is that if I want to make a small change to a cookbook and re-run the Chef client, I can't just make the change in the cache and run it. I have to do the whole process of updating the server.
Read full review
Support Rating
Terraform is community driven but does offer support for it's Enterprise product. When contacting the team at HashiCorp we have always gotten resolution to our issues. They have been very responsive in returning our calls and answering our questions as they come up. We are currently using the open source model.
Read full review
Support for Chef is easily available for fee or through the open source community as most the issues you will face will have been addressed through the Chef developer community forums. The documentation for Chef is moderate to great and easily readable.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
dbt was fine, but you end up with an extremely bloated repo/project. Often where all of the models are the same, named similarly, and generally just doesn't adhere to the concept of DRY coding. In Terraform we're able to template a lot of this work and dynamically generate assets based on variables instead.
Read full review
Chef is the more developer-oriented of the three main tools in this space. It has a steeper learning curve as a result but it allows you to do more. Puppet seems to be more geared towards automated the management of the operating system. Ansible is an excellent tool but requires you to allow SSH connectivity into all of your instances.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Using code, we are able to build and deploy cloud resources faster and more consistently than producing the same resources in the console manually.
  • For applications that share architectures, we can reuse code to expedite development. We can also do the same with modules that are shared across the organization.
  • By defining all of our resources as code, we can deploy complete environments with "batteries included." For example, we can use code that spins up servers in a cloud provider and at the same time, creates monitors with in our monitoring provider. Likewise, when the servers are decommissioned, the monitors are decommed along with them. In the past, the creation and decom of the monitors would have been a disjointed, manual step. With Terraform we get it all with one "terraform apply."
Read full review
  • We can deploy tens to hundreds of servers in a small amount of time.
  • We can grow our infrastructure very quickly with limited resources adjusting to customer demand as soon as the need arises.
  • We are able to automate many of the mundane tasks that used to occupy the time of our engineers allowing us to focus on more critical tasks.
Read full review
ScreenShots

HashiCorp Terraform Screenshots

Screenshot of Terraform StateScreenshot of Terraform RunsScreenshot of Terraform VariablesScreenshot of Terraform WorkspacesScreenshot of Terraform Cost Estimation