We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and IBM Workload Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Automic Workload Automation is highly praised for its strength, adaptability, and straightforward setup. It provides the capability to oversee various operating systems and products. IBM Workload Automation permits users to ask for added features and can initiate tasks across multiple nodes.
Automic Workload Automation can enhance its offerings in various aspects including pre-configured automation sets, multilingual support, features, user interface, web-based edition functionalities, file transfer management, pricing options, and customer assistance. IBM Workload Automation faces performance difficulties, navigation complexities, and requires enhancements in job dependencies, scheduling refreshes, simulation capabilities, system stability, reporting visibility, and API integration.
Service and Support: Automic Workload Automation is known for its satisfactory customer service, while IBM Workload Automation is highly regarded for its exceptional technical support. IBM's lab advocacy program offers in-depth code support, which sets it apart. Automic may encounter challenges in identifying the source of certain issues.
Ease of Deployment: Automic Workload Automation's initial setup duration varies based on the project size, requiring a team of one to three individuals. IBM Workload Automation's setup may pose challenges for individuals unfamiliar with IBM tools. Nevertheless, with guidance, the process becomes relatively easy.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a higher setup cost as it is determined by the number of systems being orchestrated. IBM. Automic's pricing is considered to be one of the most expensive in the market.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation's value was not mentioned, however, it is often viewed as an extra cost. IBM Workload Automation strives to enhance efficiency, decrease expenses, and boost productivity, with ROI differing depending on specific objectives and use cases.
Comparison Results: Automic Workload Automation is the preferred option over IBM Workload Automation,. Automic stands out for its strength, scalability, simplicity of implementation, and wide range of features. It enables management of various operating systems and products, which is particularly beneficial for environments with a combination of outdated and modern technologies. Automic also provides predefined templates for specific tasks and allows different users to have access.
"The initial setup was quite simple because they have a manual which tells you in a simple way of how to install it step-by-step."
"We use it in every aspect of our IT operations, and the scalability is very good."
"It saves my customers time, money, resources, and efficiency."
"It's easy to use. When you schedule jobs, if you can speak English you can schedule them easily and correctly. Also, there's a lot of flexibility because the product allows you to do many tasks, in multiple ways, so you can choose the way that works best for your environment."
"The scalability is great."
"The functionality is great, the scripting language is very powerful. They can adapt to most use cases. Very good community of different companies and a user base so when we have problems we can go to other people."
"We use it with automation, getting more speed to solve business processes."
"We use it to automate our business."
"The DWC, when configured correctly, is a great GUI tool to provide Self-Service Scheduling capabilities to the user community."
"Jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes."
"The whole product is valuable because it is a tool for batch automation."
"Provides a robust, full spectrum enterprise-wide WLA platform."
"This solution has a request feature where users can request the added features they need to have developed. Based on client voting for those features, these are developed and released."
"Jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes."
"I have supported this product in literally 100s of different environments and its unmatched in its ability to scale to any size."
"The technical support is great, the product is easy-to-use, and it is stable."
"When there's an error or a problem, the automation part of it could be easily programmed to escalate it up to the developers or whoever is going to work on it. We had to home-grow that within the product because third-party products are so expensive."
"I don't know if they have it now, but a mobile version would be good so instead of logging in on my laptop to see something, I could just go in through an app and see if a certain job is running or not. That would be pretty slick."
"Choosing Automic Workload Automation essentially locks us into their ecosystem, making it nearly impossible to switch to a different product."
"The new UI feels unready. It makes your browsers crash."
"This solution's out-of-box automation sets could be improved. They could be industry standardized out-of-box, or even runbook automation processes could be useful—just some plug-and-play automation processes out-of-box. It has many integration capabilities, from APIs to databases, but if the customer sees some out-of-box automation processes in it, it could be useful."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly in terms of job creation and scheduling, especially when doing bulk job creation."
"I would like to see more types of Calendars in the next release of this solution."
"Some of the usual features, like calendar details, are now not there."
"The schedule refreshes daily and that's a challenge for us."
"The performance of the previous versions could be better."
"It would be helpful to have a mobile app that could be used to follow the job schedule."
"It is missing some features and can improve in areas where the competition is somewhat better like linking job dependencies."
"This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly."
"It should support other schedulers that aren't IBM products."
"The configuration of IBM Workload Automation has some challenges. We have a difficult time customizing it, but it is similar to other solutions."
"There should be more custom documentation, specifically around Java APIs. There should also be more training. In terms of features, we are currently using only 50% of its features. We don't use all features that are available, but there is always room for improvement in all of the tools."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while IBM Workload Automation is ranked 14th in Workload Automation with 28 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while IBM Workload Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Automic Workload Automation writes "A tool requiring an easy setup phase that provides its users with flexibility and flow chart visibility ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Workload Automation writes "With an easy setup phase in place, agent-based installation can be done in minutes". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and OpCon, whereas IBM Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, HCL Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. IBM Workload Automation report.
See our list of best Workload Automation vendors.
We monitor all Workload Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
