This site is also available in: Deutsch (German)
The automation of IT infrastructure is now a central component of modern DevOps strategies. Tools such as Ansible and Terraform have established themselves as de facto standards for configuration management and Infrastructure as Code (IaC). But how widespread are these tools actually on the market? And how do alternatives such as Puppet, Chef or Pulumi fare? In this article, we provide a realistic overview of market adoption, including a classification of the figures and a comparison of the technical approaches of the solutions.
Relative market shares of common tools
Based on several market analyses and DevOps surveys, the following approximate picture emerges for the Configuration Management & Infrastructure as Code category:
| Tool | Estimated relative market share (approx.) |
|---|---|
| Terraform | 35-36 % |
| Ansible | 31-32 % |
| Puppet | 12-13 % |
| Boss | 6-7 % |
| Others (Salt, Pulumi, CloudFormation, etc.) | ~15 % |
👉 Important: These values show the distribution within the tool category, not the global company coverage. It does not mean, for example, that 35% of all companies use Terraform – but that of the companies that use any such tool, around a third use Terraform.
Classification by tool type
Ansible: simplicity and versatility
Ansible is particularly popular because it:
- works agentless (no permanent agent required on target systems)
- is relatively easy to learn (playbooks in YAML instead of a separate DSL)
- can be used for configuration management as well as for general automation tasks
These features explain the strong adoption, especially in small to medium-sized teams that want to see results quickly without a lot of setup effort. For example, Ansible is ideal for customizing configurations on servers, performing deployments or scripting simple provisioning tasks without complicated infrastructure.
Terraform: Standard for Infrastructure as Code
Terraform dominates the IaC sector:
- Cloud independence (one tool for AWS, Azure, GCP and more)
- a declarative approach (the desired end state is described and the tool takes over the creation of this state)
- a large provider ecosystem (many ready-made modules for different platforms)
In many organizations, Terraform is now the standard for provisioning cloud infrastructure. Entire stacks of resources – from networks and VMs to databases – can be defined as code. Terraform is often supplemented with Ansible: Terraform builds the infrastructure(e.g. cloud instances), Ansible then takes over the configuration within these instances.
Puppet & Chef: Decline, but not gone
Puppet and Chef were early market leaders in configuration management, but have been losing importance for years. The reasons for this include:
- Greater complexity in setup and use
- an agent-based architecture (requires installation of agents on all nodes and central servers)
- Strong competition from simpler tools such as Ansible, which enable a quicker start
Nevertheless, Puppet and Chef can still be found in large enterprise environments – often from historically grown structures. They still fulfill important functions there, even if new projects tend to rely more on Terraform/Ansible.
Technical comparison of the solutions
In addition to distribution, it is worth taking a look at the technical differences between the individual tools. Each has its own approach in terms of architecture and application purpose:
- Architecture (agent vs. agentless): Ansible manages without agents – it connects directly to the target systems via SSH, for example (push model). Terraform also does not require agents on the target resources; it orchestrates infrastructure via API calls to cloud platforms. Puppet and Chef, on the other hand, work in the pull model with installed agents on the managed nodes, which regularly report to a central server. Salt is a hybrid: it uses a master-minion approach with lightweight agents (minions) and fast communication via ZeroMQ, for example.
- Approach (declarative vs. procedural): Terraform and Puppet are primarily declarative – you describe the desired end state (infrastructure or system configuration), and the tool takes care of the implementation and ongoing maintenance of this state. Ansible and Chef take a more procedural approach: sequential steps/recipes are defined that are executed to bring the system to the desired state. (Important: These steps are also usually idempotent, i.e. they can be executed repeatedly without unexpected side effects).
- Language and configuration format: Ansible uses YAML-based playbooks – easy to read and understand without programming knowledge. Terraform uses its own HashiCorp Configuration Language(HCL), which is JSON-like and declarative. Puppet uses a declarative Domain Specific Language (DSL), while Chef relies on Ruby DSL (so-called cookbooks and recipes). Other tools such as Salt or Pulumi have their own approaches: Salt, for example, uses YAML combined with Jinja2 templates, while Pulumi allows common programming languages (Python, TypeScript, etc.) to be used for IaC. The choice of format has a significant influence on the learning curve – Ansible scores points here with its simplicity, while Puppet/Chef require more software engineering know-how.
- Area of application: Terraform specializes in infrastructure provisioning – ideal for setting up cloud resources or providing entire environments via code. Ansible, Puppet and Chef are classic configuration management tools – they are used after the servers already exist to manage packages, services and configurations on them. Ansible also covers orchestration and ad-hoc scripting (e.g. executing commands in parallel on x servers). However, the boundaries are blurred: Ansible can also create VM instances in the cloud, for example, and Terraform offers rudimentary options for executing configuration scripts on newly created machines with Provisioners. Nevertheless: Terraform = provide infrastructure; Ansible/Puppet/Chef = configure systems.
Conclusion of the technical comparison: Each tool has strengths in certain areas – and many organizations use several tools to complement each other. For example, it is common to provide the infrastructure with Terraform and then carry out the fine configuration with Ansible. Puppet and Chef are mainly used where continuous enforcement of configurations in large environments is required. Which tool is technically “the best” depends heavily on the intended use, the existing environments and the skills in the team.
DevOps context: Why the numbers are rising
Regardless of the individual tool, one thing is clear:
- Over 75% of organizations now use DevOps practices in some form. DevOps has become mainstream.
- The IaC market is growing at double-digit rates every year, as more and more companies are automating infrastructure and mapping it as code.
This also increases the use of new or specialized tools:
- Terraform alternatives (e.g. OpenTofu as an open source fork, or proprietary offerings such as AWS CloudFormation) are gaining users.
- Kubernetes-centric solutions such as Crossplane are used in cloud-native environments to manage infrastructure via Kubernetes APIs.
- Program-controlled IaC tools such as Pulumi (Infrastructure as Code with common programming languages) show that new approaches are also finding favor alongside the established DSL tools.
The general DevOps enthusiasm is therefore driving the entire category forward – both the top dogs Terraform/Ansible and niche solutions are benefiting from this upswing.
Conclusion
- Terraform and Ansible are currently the market-leading tools in their respective categories (provisioning vs. configuration management).
- Terraform has the highest relative market share among infrastructure automation tools – closely followed by Ansible.
- Puppet and Chef only play a minor role, but are still relevant and in use in the enterprise environment.
- Exact global usage figures hardly exist – market shares must always be viewed in the right context (e.g. survey basis, region, sector).
- IaC and automation remain growth drivers: the prevalence of these tools will continue to rise with increasing cloud and DevOps adoption.
ONLU offers customized software development and IT consulting in Switzerland from Avaloq consulting and Finnova consulting to Abacus and API consulting, MCP consulting and IT management. With our highly skilled IT team focused on Artificial Intelligence and a modern cloud-native hybrid on-premises tech stack, we are able to develop future-proof applications and provide full-stack DevOps consulting services – including the integration of complex core systems such as Avaloq, Abacus, Syrius, Finnova and others. In this way, we ensure that banks, insurers and companies in other industries can securely and effectively exploit the benefits of automation and IaC for their business.
