HashiCorp Vagrant vs. Progress Chef

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
HashiCorp Vagrant
Score 10.0 out of 10
N/A
Vagrant is a tool designed to create and configure lightweight, reproducible, and portable development environments. It leverages a declarative configuration file which describes all software requirements, packages, operating system configuration, and users.N/A
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 VagrantProgress Chef
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
HashiCorp VagrantProgress 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 VagrantProgress Chef
Considered Both Products
HashiCorp Vagrant
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Docker has a few advantages, especially with the disk size bloat brought on by Vagrant's hosting an entire OS and project in a VM. It relies on native tools, however, and may not support every software.
Vagrant provides uniformity, efficiency and repeatability within team work …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Fast[er] to implement than Docker. Even consuming a lot of resources, consume less resources than Docker. Cheaper than Azure, since [it] is free.
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
I liked lando better because lando seemed extremely easy to setup compared to other VM's and it seemed faster though that project was simpler. Virtualbox I ran on windows and it has a gui and has often been slow. The vagrant boxes I used did well but had slightly more …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Docker feels lighter, faster, but Vagrant offers better support across platforms, which is a must in my company where there are users on Linux, Mac OS and Windows.
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Virtualbox and VMware were easier products to set up but did not stack up against Vagrant with the customization and the ability to specifically test and work with our code base. Virtualbox and VMware were more generic solutions that may be easier but they did not fulfill the …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
MAMP is a much simpler solution than Vagrant. Pretty much anyone should be able to get MAMP up and running quickly, and it's much easier to maintain. However, MAMP is fairly limited to specific versions of software and runs within macOS, so it won't always completely be an …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Previously I had used MAMP and DesktopServer. MAMP was constantly giving me MySQL problems and is frustrating in that it limits how many installs you can have. DesktopServers was a little better, but broke when i switched to High Sierra OSX. Their website and support were very …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
I like Vagrant much more than Docker. In my opinion it's easier and more flexible to configure a Vagrant machine how i like it compared to Docker. Of course Docker executes faster, but with Vagrant only the machine creation or booting process is slower, normally you don't …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
There's not much that I'm aware of that really does exactly what Vagrant does. Many of its tasks could be accomplished manually or via custom scripts. However, with Vagrant, automation is within easy grasp as well as a large community of experts who have pre-built solutions …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Vagrant is a little different than other options out there. It blurs the lines between the server environment and the local environment. Options like MAMP and XAMPP allow a developer to run a local version of Apache, MySQL and PHP locally, but it's all based on the local …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
Vagrant is more of a meta-tool compared to traditional VM software. It provides a layer on top of VMware or VirtualBox. Configurations in a Vagrantfile are so much easier to manage than complete VMs.
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
In comparison to Docker, Vagrant is a lot easier to create its [containers] boxes, than it is with Docker. Our company already dealt with and its devops team knew somewhat well the way of Vagrant, so it was quite natural to go Vagrant when trying to choose which would be our …
Chose HashiCorp Vagrant
By default Vagrant uses VirtualBox but compared to using VirtualBox directly, I've found using Vagrant makes things easier. For one, you can commit your Vagrant configuration to GitHub and manage changes that way. I'm not sure how you'd handle updated virtual machines to all …
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.
Best Alternatives
HashiCorp VagrantProgress Chef
Small Businesses
HashiCorp Terraform
HashiCorp Terraform
Score 8.5 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 VagrantProgress Chef
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(0 ratings)
8.9
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
5.5
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
9.4
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
7.7
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
-
(0 ratings)
9.6
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
HashiCorp VagrantProgress Chef
Likelihood to Recommend
If you're writing software, particularly software that depends on other services (web servers or databases for example) then Vagrant is great. I know some people skip Vagrant and just set up virtual machines on their own, but I've found that Vagrant streamlines the process nicely and makes it easy to update or swap out versions. If you're a web developer (which I am) it's amazing. I can have several boxes configured for my different projects and I just spin them up or down based on what I'm working on. One scenario where this might not be ideal is if you're running Vagrant on a computer that has limited resources. Since you're running a virtual machine with its own operating system and such you'll want a host computer with enough RAM, hard drive space and CPU to run the virtual machine properly without killing the performance of the host. The virtual disks can also take up a lot of space if you're not careful so if you have many virtual machines provisioned and don't clean up the old ones that you're not using, you may find that your hard drive is full. Each of my Linux servers take up about 10GB of disk space.
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
  • Easy to create machines with different OS's, list of them can be found from Vagrant's website with configuration details.
  • Flexible configuration, user can determine what software will be pre-installed to machine. Saves time because it doesn't need to be done manually every time.
  • Easily manage full environments, not just single machines, with single command.
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
  • Learning curve is steep - It can be challenging for someone to set up initially. After some coaching, the basics come pretty quickly though.
  • Relies on external Virtual Machine applications - It would be great if Vagrant itself could run the virtual machine instead of leaning on other virtualization software. This is a small detail, but would make setup simple.
  • Better support for running
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
Likelihood to Renew
Vagrant is fast, versatile and does exactly what we need it to do: spin up virtual servers for local development fast and without trouble.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
A GUI would be nice for entry level users.
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
No answers on this topic
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
No answers on this topic
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
Docker has a few advantages, especially with the disk size bloat brought on by Vagrant's hosting an entire OS and project in a VM. It relies on native tools, however, and may not support every software. Vagrant provides uniformity, efficiency and repeatability within team work and for deployment and testing.
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
  • Saved lots of time by being able to set up a local env quickly
  • Occasionally made troubleshooting bugs harder than it would have been using native Linux
  • Clients had issues setting it up, which may have provided us some security in keeping their business
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