We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch Workload Automation and Automic Workload Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly regarded for its flexibility, simplicity, and ready-made tasks. It provides live monitoring, automatic scheduling, and effective resource management. Automic Workload Automation receives acclaim for its strength, scalability, and straightforward integration. It enables control over various operating systems and products, offering a wide array of features and a user-friendly interface.
ActiveBatch Workload Automation can be enhanced in areas such as managed file transfer, licensing, cloud aspect, user interface, reliability of triggers, monitoring dashboard, price, documentation, support, and integration capabilities. Automic Workload Automation requires improvement in automation sets, language support, functionality, interface, web-based edition, file transfer, pricing, and support.
Service and Support: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has been praised for its customer service, specifically its helpful and responsive technical support. However, there are concerns about the service model and availability of the hotline. Automic Workload Automation has received mixed reviews, with some customers appreciating quick response times and helpful knowledge articles. However, others have faced challenges in reaching support and experienced delays in issue resolution.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is straightforward and uncomplicated, although it can be slightly challenging when implementing it on various operating systems. The initial setup for Automic Workload Automation can be time-consuming and intricate, taking anywhere from one to five days.
Pricing: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly regarded for its flexible and reasonably priced setup cost. Users find it to be competitive when compared to other tools. Automic Workload Automation has experienced pricing changes. While some users view it as expensive, they still consider it affordable in comparison to similar solutions.
ROI: Active Workload Automation has been highly regarded for its ability to generate positive financial outcomes, resulting in a notable increase in net revenue ranging from 20% to 30%. Automic Workload Automation did not provide much ROI for users and was perceived as an added expenditure.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is the preferred choice when compared to Automic Workload Automation. Users appreciate ActiveBatch for its straightforward setup process and intuitive interface, while Automic is acknowledged to have different degrees of complexity. ActiveBatch is also praised for its versatility, offering prebuilt jobs and a user-friendly configuration.
"One of the valuable features is the ability to trigger workflows, one after another, based on success, without having to worry about overlapping workflows. The ability to integrate our BI, analytics, and our data quality jobs is also valuable"
"I found ActiveBatch Workload Automation to be a very good scheduling tool. What I like best about it is that it has very less downtime when managing many complex scheduling workflows, so I'm very impressed with ActiveBatch Workload Automation."
"Since we are no longer waiting for an operator to see that a job is finished, we have changed our daily cycle from running in eight hours down to about five. We had a third shift-operator retire and that position was never refilled."
"Managing the workload and monitoring the tasks were very difficult with manual interventions. Now, by using ActiveBatch, the process is automated and it runs tasks on a scheduled basis."
"It is very useful in sending confidential files through FPP servers."
"The Jobs Library has been a tremendous asset. For the most, that's what we use. There are some outliers, but we pretty much integrate those Jobs Library steps throughout the process, whether it's REST calls, FTP processes, or file copies and moves... That has helped us to build end-to-end workflows."
"What ActiveBatch allows you to do is develop a more efficient process. It gave me visibility into all my jobs so I could choose which jobs to run in parallel. This is much easier than when I have to try to do it through cron for Windows XP, where you really can't do things in parallel and know what is going on."
"For developers, it is easy to orchestrate the workflows and the integration has been very easy."
"We use it with automation, getting more speed to solve business processes."
"An important feature is the ability to modify PeopleSoft Run Controls at run-time."
"People are called back five minutes after I establish a ticket or incident. They are often doing WebEx and web sessions to get to the point."
"A good piece of software is like a good referee. If it's doing good, you don't notice it. That's the good thing about Automic. We don't even notice that it's there a lot of the time. It's a very, very stable product."
"You gain a lot of time and effort because you can automatize many things. Repetitive tasks costs us, so we can reduce them to zero effort and minimal costs by using the product."
"The scalability is good because you can add on as many services and processes as you want."
"Number one, A+, is the scripting language, and the ability to go in, and take an already robust, consistent, strong tool, and turn it into an incredibly scalable, flexible tool, that you can literally do anything you want to with."
"We use the FTP agent excessively, and the connection is easy to handle between our company and the outside."
"They could provide an easier installation guide or technical support to the organizations during the installation process."
"The UI could potentially offer a more refined and user-friendly experience, fostering smoother interactions and facilitating easier navigation for users engaging with the application."
"I can't get the cleaning up of logs to work consistently. Right now, we are not setup correctly, and maybe it is something that I have not effectively communicated to them."
"The user interface can be improved so that it is more appealing and accessible to new users."
"ActiveBatch UI could use a little more help, and video tutorials would be greatly appreciated for user guides."
"Some of the advanced features in the user interface are a bit confusing even after referring to the documents."
"There is this back and forth, where ActiveBatch says, "Your Oracle people should be dealing with this," and Oracle people say, "No, we don't know anything about ActiveBatch." Then, it all falls back on me as to what happens. Nobody is taking responsibility. This is the biggest failing for ActiveBatch."
"As more organizations are moving towards a cloud-based infrastructure, ActiveBatch could incorporate more capabilities that support popular cloud platforms, such as AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud."
"The new user interface needs improvement. The previous version was good and stable. Now, we have to check the new one before using a web browser. It is not stable."
"It seems still very technical to get the full features out... Once you get to some of the leadership levels, such as myself, you don't have time to go digging into it. It would be nice to have some additional performance features such as reporting, analytics."
"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."
"There are too many bugs to be solved after a version upgrade. We are working on the limits of an architecture with 16,000 platforms. It is impossible to test everything out in the software lab of CA."
"For power users, it does not work well for them at the moment."
"Today, we use a rich client for this product. In the future, or for the next release, they will be using a web interface. This web interface is not as scalable as the rich client for us. The web client is not 100 percent programmed as we need it."
"The new UI feels unready. It makes your browsers crash."
"It would be better if it was easier to view the automated processes."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, 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 ". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs and VisualCron, whereas Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and Automic Automation Intelligence. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Automic 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.
