What Do Chef and Ansible Have in Common?

What do Chef and Ansible have in common?

  1. They use YAML as their primary configuration syntax.
  2. They rely on a procedural approach. Source Reference Answer
  3. They rely on a declarative approach
  4. They are clientless architectures.

Community Votes

B
100%

100% of anonymous learners picked answer B. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.

Community Insight

The exam tests your understanding of configuration management paradigms, specifically the common trap of confusing Ansible's declarative-looking YAML syntax with a truly declarative approach—Ansible is fundamentally procedural in execution.

Chef and Ansible are both configuration management tools that rely on a procedural approach to infrastructure automation. Community consensus strongly supports that both tools use procedural methodologies, making B the correct answer.

Many candidates choose C (declarative approach) because Ansible uses YAML playbooks that appear declarative, but Ansible executes tasks sequentially and procedurally, just like Chef's Ruby-based recipes.

Community Discussion (9 comments)

masrur 👍 5 Selected: B
Ansible is hybrid (procedural and declarative), since Chef is procedural the answer is B.
Mithrantir 👍 3 Selected: B
Ansible and Chef are both procedural
RickAO76 👍 3 Selected: B
They are Procedural.
you_ 👍 2 Selected: B
Ansible and Chef ---> Procedural
you_ 👍 1
Ansible and Chef ---> Procedural
babanaber 👍 1
whats the correct answer?
joseromerogarci 👍 4 Selected: B
Ref: https://blog.gruntwork.io/why-we-use-terraform-and-not-chef-puppet-ansible-saltstack-or-cloudformation-7989dad2865c There is a sum in Table 1-4
Adalberto 👍 1
C is Right.
wengzaii96 👍 1
C is wrong

Comments & Corrections

No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.

Log in to comment, report an error, or add a note about this question.

Submitted for moderation before publishing. Keep it helpful and respectful.

Expert Analysis

Why the Answer Is Correct

Both Chef and Ansible follow a procedural approach to configuration management, meaning they execute tasks in a defined sequential order. Chef uses Ruby-based recipes that describe step-by-step procedures, while Ansible uses playbooks with tasks that run in sequence from top to bottom. This procedural nature is a key differentiator from purely declarative tools like Terraform, which focus on desired end-state rather than execution steps.

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

Option A is incorrect because only Ansible uses YAML as its primary syntax; Chef uses Ruby. Option C is a common trap—while Ansible's YAML format may appear declarative, its execution model is procedural, and Chef is clearly procedural with Ruby recipes. Option D is wrong because Chef requires an agent (client) installed on managed nodes, so it is not clientless, unlike Ansible which is agentless.

Community Comment Notes

The community overwhelmingly voted for B (100% of votes), with multiple comments confirming that both Ansible and Chef are procedural. Comment [1] helpfully notes that Ansible is sometimes considered hybrid but is fundamentally procedural in execution. Comment [2] references a Gruntwork blog comparison table that supports this classification. A few dissenting comments suggested C, but these were quickly corrected by the community.

Official Reference

Exam Strategy

When comparing configuration management tools on the 350-401 exam, focus on their execution model rather than their syntax. Remember that Ansible's YAML playbooks may look declarative, but tasks execute procedurally in order—always look past the surface-level syntax to the underlying paradigm.

Related Analysis

Practice All 350-401 Questions

Access 218 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.

View Full 350-401 Practice Test →

← Back to 350-401 Study Guide