Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
AWS CloudFormation vs Octopus Deploy: What are the differences?
- Deployment Automation: AWS CloudFormation is primarily a tool for provisioning and managing AWS infrastructure in a repeatable manner, whereas Octopus Deploy focuses on application deployment and configuration management across various environments.
- Platform Support: While AWS CloudFormation is specific to AWS services and resources, Octopus Deploy can deploy applications to a variety of platforms including cloud-based services, on-premises servers, and containers.
- Granularity of Control: AWS CloudFormation operates at a lower level of infrastructure abstraction, allowing for detailed control and customization of resources, whereas Octopus Deploy abstracts away much of the underlying infrastructure complexity, focusing more on application deployment workflows.
- Community and Ecosystem: Octopus Deploy boasts a strong community and ecosystem with numerous plugins and integrations available, enabling users to extend its capabilities easily, while AWS CloudFormation's ecosystem is more AWS-centric.
- Cost Model: AWS CloudFormation pricing is based on the resources provisioned and managed within AWS, whereas Octopus Deploy follows a subscription-based pricing model depending on the number of targets and instances being managed.
- Role-based Access Control: Octopus Deploy offers more elaborate role-based access control (RBAC) features for fine-grained permission management, whereas AWS CloudFormation's access control is more closely integrated with AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM).
In Summary, AWS CloudFormation is focused on infrastructure provisioning and management within AWS, while Octopus Deploy specializes in application deployment workflows across various platforms with a stronger emphasis on community support and role-based access control.
Because Pulumi uses real programming languages, you can actually write abstractions for your infrastructure code, which is incredibly empowering. You still 'describe' your desired state, but by having a programming language at your fingers, you can factor out patterns, and package it up for easier consumption.
We use Terraform to manage AWS cloud environment for the project. It is pretty complex, largely static, security-focused, and constantly evolving.
Terraform provides descriptive (declarative) way of defining the target configuration, where it can work out the dependencies between configuration elements and apply differences without re-provisioning the entire cloud stack.
AdvantagesTerraform is vendor-neutral in a way that it is using a common configuration language (HCL) with plugins (providers) for multiple cloud and service providers.
Terraform keeps track of the previous state of the deployment and applies incremental changes, resulting in faster deployment times.
Terraform allows us to share reusable modules between projects. We have built an impressive library of modules internally, which makes it very easy to assemble a new project from pre-fabricated building blocks.
DisadvantagesSoftware is imperfect, and Terraform is no exception. Occasionally we hit annoying bugs that we have to work around. The interaction with any underlying APIs is encapsulated inside 3rd party Terraform providers, and any bug fixes or new features require a provider release. Some providers have very poor coverage of the underlying APIs.
Terraform is not great for managing highly dynamic parts of cloud environments. That part is better delegated to other tools or scripts.
Terraform state may go out of sync with the target environment or with the source configuration, which often results in painful reconciliation.
I personally am not a huge fan of vendor lock in for multiple reasons:
- I've seen cost saving moves to the cloud end up costing a fortune and trapping companies due to over utilization of cloud specific features.
- I've seen S3 failures nearly take down half the internet.
- I've seen companies get stuck in the cloud because they aren't built cloud agnostic.
I choose to use terraform for my cloud provisioning for these reasons:
- It's cloud agnostic so I can use it no matter where I am.
- It isn't difficult to use and uses a relatively easy to read language.
- It tests infrastructure before running it, and enables me to see and keep changes up to date.
- It runs from the same CLI I do most of my CM work from.
Pros of AWS CloudFormation
- Automates infrastructure deployments43
- Declarative infrastructure and deployment21
- No more clicking around13
- Any Operative System you want3
- Atomic3
- Infrastructure as code3
- CDK makes it truly infrastructure-as-code1
- Automates Infrastructure Deployment1
- K8s0
Pros of Octopus Deploy
- Powerful30
- Simplicity25
- Easy to learn20
- .Net oriented17
- Easy to manage releases and rollback14
- Allows multitenancy8
- Nice interface4
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of AWS CloudFormation
- Brittle4
- No RBAC and policies in templates2
Cons of Octopus Deploy
- Poor UI4
- Config & variables not versioned (e.g. in git)2
- Management of Config2