What's the Difference Between Puppet and Ansible

Published on 06 Dec 2025 by Adam Lloyd-Jones

Ansible and Puppet represent two distinct philosophies regarding configuration management, primarily differentiated by their architectural models and execution methods. Puppet operates primarily on a master-agent architecture, utilizing a pull model, while Ansible employs an agentless architecture using a push model.

Architecture and agent requirement

Feature	Puppet (Master-Agent)	Ansible (Agentless)
Agent Requirement	Requires a dedicated agent running on every managed node.	Is agentless, requiring no specialized software installed on the managed nodes.
Control Nodes	The server where Puppet code (manifests) is stored and compiled into catalogs. It often serves as the central Certificate Authority (CA).	Instructions are pushed out from a central control node, which executes the Ansible CLI.
Scaling	Scaling typically involves dividing the workload among multiple machines (workers) for tasks like catalog compilation to handle heavy loads.	Is built for minimal resource usage, eliminating the installation of extra agents or daemons.

Execution model and language

Puppet and Ansible also differ fundamentally in how they achieve configuration goals:

Execution Model (Push vs. Pull): Puppet typically operates using a pull model. The agent software installed on the managed host runs and calls back to the central Puppet master requesting its configuration (the manifest). In contrast, Ansible uses a push-out approach where instructions are transmitted from the control node to the managed instances. Ansible achieves this by transferring small programs (modules) over SSH to the managed nodes, executing them, and removing them upon completion.
Language Paradigm: Puppet generally uses a declarative language model. The administrator defines the desired end state of the system, and the agent determines the necessary steps to achieve it, operating on the principle of eventual consistency. Ansible, while supporting declarative modules, is primarily an imperative language. It requires the administrator to define the order in which tasks are executed to reach the desired state.
Communication Mechanism: Puppet relies on an agent to handle communication, certificates, and manifest application. Ansible leverages existing infrastructure protocols, primarily SSH (for Linux/Unix) and WinRM (for Windows), to communicate securely with managed nodes.

The architectural contrast between Ansible and Puppet represents two fundamentally different approaches to system automation: agentless push versus master-agent pull.

Agent requirement and installation

The most significant distinction lies in the requirement for specialized software on the managed nodes:

Puppet’s Master-Agent Model: Puppet relies on a dedicated agent (client software) that must be installed on every managed node. This agent software is typically configured to run continuously. This reliance on pre-installed software presented a challenge in environments where installing an agent is impractical or impossible, such as on many network devices.
Ansible’s Agentless Model: Ansible is inherently an agentless technology. It requires no specialized software, persistent daemons, or extra ports to be opened on the managed hosts. This results in lower resource consumption and reduced management overhead on the systems being configured.

Communication and execution model

The mechanisms by which instructions are delivered and executed differ dramatically:

Puppet (Pull Model): Puppet operates primarily using a pull model. The agent software installed on the managed host initiates contact with the central Puppet master (the control node). The agent calls back to the server, identifying itself, and requests its configuration (the manifest or catalog). This checking process typically takes place at regular intervals, often every 15 to 30 minutes, to enforce the desired configuration state. Communication between nodes and the master is primarily achieved through HTTP SSL transactions, often utilizing port 8140.
Ansible (Push Model): Ansible uses a push-out approach, where instructions are actively transmitted from the central control node to the managed instances. This communication relies on existing infrastructure protocols—typically SSH for Linux/Unix hosts or WinRM for Windows hosts. When executed, the Ansible control node transfers small, discrete executable scripts, known as modules, to the remote device via SSH/WinRM. These modules perform the required actions locally and are automatically removed from the node once execution is complete.

Language paradigm and purpose

The goals of each architecture shape the type of language they employ:

Puppet (Declarative Language): Puppet utilizes a specialized declarative language to define configurations, focusing on specifying the desired end state of the system. It operates on the principle of eventual consistency, meaning the system will eventually conform to the declared state after the agent runs a sufficient number of times. Puppet’s design is heavily focused on consistently policing a configuration state over time.
Ansible (Imperative/Hybrid Language): Ansible is often classified as an imperative language because administrators define the sequential order in which tasks must be executed to reach the desired configuration. While supporting this imperative flow, Ansible also features many modules that function declaratively. Ansible is frequently categorized as an orchestration tool, designed to handle complex, sequential operations, such as provisioning a server and then configuring a software stack immediately afterward.

The agentless nature of Ansible, leveraging existing SSH infrastructure, simplifies setup and provides a lower barrier to entry, whereas Puppet’s design, centered on a dedicated agent and master, enables stringent, long-term configuration monitoring and state enforcement.

Summary of contextual differences

Ansible’s agentless approach provided a major advantage, especially in network automation, where the reliance of tools like Puppet and Chef on agents was often a “non-starter” for most network hardware. Ansible is often perceived as an orchestration tool designed to run sequential tasks (like deploying a stack or launching a server) that might only be executed once, whereas Puppet’s design origins focused on consistently deploying and policing a configuration state over time.

Adam Lloyd-Jones

Adam is a privacy-first SaaS builder, technical educator, and automation strategist. He leads modular infrastructure projects across AWS, Azure, and GCP, blending deep cloud expertise with ethical marketing and content strategy.