What Do Chef and Ansible Have in Common?
Short answer
B They rely on a procedural approach.
Question
Key Takeaways
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.
Common mistake: 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.
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
This link opens the official vendor documentation in a new tab.
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.
Community Votes
100% of anonymous learners picked answer B. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Discussion 8 contributions
Compiled from public community threads and reader submissions, lightly edited for clarity. Handles and vote tallies are shown as recorded, and comments reflect the views of individual contributors.
From public community threads 8
-
masrur 👍 5 Answered BAnsible is hybrid (procedural and declarative), since Chef is procedural the answer is B.
-
joseromerogarci 👍 4 Answered BRef: 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
-
Mithrantir 👍 3 Answered BAnsible and Chef are both procedural
-
you_ 👍 2 Answered BAnsible and Chef ---> Procedural
-
RickAO76 👍 3 Answered BThey are Procedural.
Show 3 more comments
-
babanaber 👍 1whats the correct answer?
-
Adalberto 👍 1C is Right.
-
wengzaii96 👍 1C is wrong
Reader comments & corrections
No reader corrections yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Related Analysis
Practice All 350-401 Questions
Access 218 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.
View Full 350-401 Practice Test →