We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Tidal 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 valued for its strong performance, ability to handle large workloads, and user-friendly implementation. It provides comprehensive control over various systems and products. Tidal Automation is particularly praised for its efficient job scheduler and advanced real-time monitoring features.
Automic could enhance its out-of-box automation sets, language support, functionality, user interface, web-based edition features, file transfer management, pricing, and SaaS deployment. Tidal could benefit from improvements in its graphical user interface, pricing model, cloud/hybrid solution, QA testing, job migration, reporting, artificial intelligence capabilities, integration, and user-friendliness.
Service and Support: Automic Workload Automation's customer service has received varied feedback, with some customers appreciating prompt responses and useful knowledge articles, while others have encountered challenges in contacting the support team. Tidal Automation's customer service is highly regarded for its responsiveness, expertise, and consistent resolution of issues.
Ease of Deployment: Automic's initial setup duration and complexity can differ, lasting anywhere from one to five days based on the project scale and implementation. Tidal Automation's initial setup is described as simple and effortless, necessitating approximately three weeks along with a few servers and a database.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation and Tidal Automation were compared for their setup cost. Users found Automic Workload Automation to be more cost-effective and user-friendly compared to Tidal Automation. They praised Automic for its efficiency in setting up automation processes without incurring excessive expenses.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation is seen as an added cost without clear ROI figures, while Tidal Automation has demonstrated positive ROI through cost savings, enhanced efficiency, and better risk management. Tidal Automation also excels in seamless integration and fulfilling automation needs.
Comparison Results: Tidal Automation emerges as the preferred choice compared to Automic Workload Automation. The setup process for Tidal Automation is described as straightforward and easy, taking approximately three weeks, whereas Automic's setup can take anywhere from one to five days. Users highly appreciate Tidal Automation's job scheduler and single pane of glass interface, which make workload management and monitoring simple.
"I have found new methods for converting scripts from Dollar U to ONE Automation. For example, I take the dynamic library from Dollar U and put it in the dynamic binary library in ONE Automation. This enables us to use Dollar U scripts in ONE Automation."
"There are a lot of features which help us get a stable application. It is easy to have a stable production line, because this app supports us very well."
"The night processing helps to have data just-in-time for the morning."
"Workload Automation's most valuable features are perspective analytics and coding."
"Both the stability and the scalability of Automic Workload Automation are great."
"I like the script engine of CA, where you can build everything you want."
"We automate very manual, robust tasks, which are very time consuming and not error-free."
"We do not have different automated silos. We have one view for our operators, which are doing things 24/7, and need just one interface, not multiple ones."
"The first, big thing that we got out of using Tidal Workload Automation was having a centralized view of the status of all of our batch processes across all these systems... We can look into the schedule at any given time and see if things are running on track or if they are falling behind. We can also see if something failed."
"We use the solution for cross-platform, cross-application workloads. The solution’s ability to manage and monitor these workloads is very easy and accurate. We have file dependencies for running jobs. The job does not start until a file exists on a completely different server, then where the job will run. So, it is cross systems."
"Tidal Automation allows organizations to automate complex workflows and processes, reducing the need for manual intervention and improving operational efficiency."
"Tidal Automation by Redwood is a user-friendly solution."
"It's the most efficient tool in doing repetitive tasks and saves a lot of time with minimum possibility of error."
"We wouldn't be able to do many of the complex scheduling that we do today without it. For us, it is a mission-critical app. Because if it doesn't work or has a problem, then SAP doesn't function. It is that critical. So, it's an essential tool for us to manage and run SAP jobs."
"It is intended to enable large-scale automation environments, making it appropriate for companies with complicated processes and big data volumes."
"The best feature is that it allows task scheduling based on particular occurrences, like the receipt of files, database updates, or system notifications."
"There could be a better user interface for end users. They should make it more intuitive, not based on Java."
"ServiceNow creates problems with the Automic entry of the connector, so the stability could be a little bit better with this product."
"I would like to see more types of Calendars in the next release of this solution."
"I would like a good AWI in the next release. The AWI is not fully functional at this time."
"Most of our issues are related to the system, not the job scheduling, such as, bugs and unexpected downtime of the application or database."
"The only thing that we would like improved is the FTP agent. It only supports SOCKS proxy, and we would like it to also support an HTTP proxy."
"It has a very complicated interface, which could be made to be more user-friendly."
"We have some problems with updates where some functions are changed, so you have to check your whole system to see if everything is still running. The update process for us is around two months of testing and one day of updates."
"The drill-down into details using the Graphical Views feature is a bit difficult and not that helpful. If you want to go into the details, you have to go to the Job Activity. Graphical Views is not that easy for getting that kind of information."
"I would like more involvement with the cloud."
"For the most part, the drill-down and the logging are really good. But if we take an Informatica job, for example: We have the ability, and the operators have the ability, to actually drill down and see, at a session level, where the failure is. There is, unfortunately, no way to extract that into an actual output email or failure email. It's not that that information is not available, but extracting it into an email would be a nice-to-have."
"The solution needs more advanced reporting and data visualization capabilities to enable deeper analysis of job performance and trends."
"We've had some quirky stuff happen on an occasional basis where a job does not take off. For example, a job we expected to be finished by 3:00 a.m. is sitting there and not executing when we come in in the morning. We have to go all the way back to the dependencies and then we can see that one of the dependencies has become unscheduled, for some reason. No changes were made to the schedule but this prerequisite job has, all of a sudden, become unscheduled. I have brought this up with Tidal's support but they have never had an answer for it."
"The job failure alerts can be updated with more details for better troubleshooting."
"I know they are working on it, but there needs to be better reporting. Currently, there are only three or four reports that we can get off of the system. That needs to be improved. They already have a solution to this in the new version. I.e., a schedule of all the jobs running for one day, specifically calling out what dependencies that job relies on. It would be like a flow chart of how the day's jobs would run."
"One thing I would like to see improved is that, currently, when an action is executed and finishes in Tidal, it's marked as either "success" or "failure." I would like more options that would flag a job according to multiple options, rather than just "good" or bad"... Tidal has told us that it's possible to do so through the product or with a workaround."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Tidal by Redwood is ranked 2nd in Workload Automation with 37 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Tidal by Redwood is rated 9.0. 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 Tidal by Redwood writes "Great visibility with a single pane of glass and a low learning curve". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and MOVEit, whereas Tidal by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs and Fortra's JAMS. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Tidal by Redwood 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.
