We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Stonebranch Universal Automation Center 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 appreciated for its strong and flexible capability, scalability, and straightforward setup process. It provides extensive control over various operating systems and products, accompanied by pre-designed templates and convenient access through web browsers. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center stands out in terms of efficiency, visually appealing graphical representation, and the capability to establish dependencies between different tasks. It offers an intuitive solution, regularly enhances its software, and provides valuable technical support.
Automic Workload Automation has room for improvement in terms of industry standardization, plug-and-play automation processes, language support, functionality, user interface, web-based edition, manage file transfer area, and pricing. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could enhance its offerings by providing cloud deployment, improving analytics, offering a mobile app for task monitoring, and collaborating with the vendor for future releases.
Service and Support: The customer service for Automic Workload Automation has garnered varying feedback, as some customers encountered challenges when trying to contact the support team. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is widely commended for its exceptional and consistently accessible technical support.
Ease of Deployment: The setup for Automic Workload Automation can take anywhere from one to five days, depending on the project size. The setup for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is considered average in terms of ease, with the deployment process lasting approximately six months. Implementation can take one to two years.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a high setup cost. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is more affordable compared to its rivals, making it a favored option among businesses.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation did not offer specific ROI figures, but the user opted not to renew the license in order to reduce costs. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center led to a cost reduction.
Comparison Results: Automic Workload Automation is favored over Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. Users appreciate Automic's strength, scalability, and ease of implementation, as well as its extensive features and architecture. Automic is considered user-friendly with a simple interface.
"All the components that it can use to design work flow; process automation."
"It is scalable. We can grow it out."
"The product has benefited our organization. It saves time and manpower."
"Automic is perfect to work with for a lot of job loads."
"It saves a lot of time and mistakes, because we used to do a lot of manual work. Since we added automation a little bit over a year now, it has enhanced our daily work."
"We have seen big improvements in automation and automated tasks allowing our people to work on more important things for the company, as well as getting financial data quicker."
"The ability the system has to dynamically create groups, schedules, and workflows is crucial to us. In a fast-paced, agile environment, our teams are very lean. Monitoring and maintaining of all the approximately 2,000,000 executions of Automic jobs are managed by only three employees. The system has been designed to be as dynamic and versatile as the business processes and teams that own them."
"Support is good and it works fine."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"The tasks are incredibly capable, and as long as you name them with a nice, uniform naming convention, they are very useful. You can create some interesting workflows through various machines, or you can just have it kick off single tasks. All in all, I really like the Universal Task. You can do some mutually exclusive stuff, such as an "A not B" kind of thing. It has a lot of capabilities behind the scenes."
"I love the Universal Controller. It's been great for us. We host it on-premise... It's High Availability, meaning there's failover from one server to the other if one goes down."
"I can name the aliases on the agent, so if we need a passive environment for an agent, that's one of the nice features. If our primary goes down, I can bring up the passive one and I don't have to change anything in the scheduling world. It will start running from that new server."
"We lean a lot on the multi-tenancy that they offer within the product, the ability to get other people to self-manage their estate, versus having a central team do all the scheduling."
"When it comes to agent technology and compatibility with other vendors, from a platform perspective it was the one vendor that fit all the platforms that we have, from your old platforms - mainframe, NSK, IBM i - to the new ones, going into cloud and container"
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"There is one missing part in the product concerning recurring tasks. You can schedule a recurring task by a context action, and run it as recurrent, but it creates a time container which can be quit and disappears."
"There are some monitoring features that could be added."
"If you're getting deep into some of these workflows, you may have 20 different windows open and, if you didn't already have that deep understanding of how enterprise orchestration works, it would be very overwhelming to get up to speed on something like that... It needs some way to minimize the amount of windows and get it to where you could have all the information you need available on the screen."
"The user interface has room for improvement."
"For the user interface of version 12.1, I cannot find a lot of utilities and objects from previous versions, making me change my habits. This is not good."
"I would like to see more types of Calendars in the next release of this solution."
"I hope in the next release that they will solve all the bugs which they have found in development."
"Our users are used to the flatline of the UC4. When we introduced the AVI, they are not interested nor motivated to use it."
"There is room for improvement with its connectivity with the Microsoft SRS system. It is very weak. They keep telling us it works with it, and technically it does, but it does not provide a lot of visibility. We have lost a lot of visibility migrating to Stonebranch, compared with just running tasks on the SRS server. That's really about the only thing that is a sore point for us."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"The Universal Controller is decent for the money it costs... It needs some work to have full features, compared to other products that are out there, specifically IBM's Workload Scheduler."
"There is a component called the OMS, which is the message broker. We rely on infrastructure, resiliency, and availability for that piece. If that could change to be highly available just as a software component, so that we don't have to provide the high-available storage, etc. for it, that would be a plus. It would just be cheaper to run."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"It would be ideal if they had the exact same features as the CA Workload Automation DE series. It would be helpful to have calendaring options."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. 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 Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and HCL Workload Automation, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Tidal by Redwood. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Stonebranch 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.
