We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch by Redwood and JSCAPE by Redwood based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is very useful in sending confidential files through FPP servers."
"The most valuable feature is its stability. We've only had very minor issues and generally they have happened because someone has applied a patch on a Windows operating system and it has caused some grief. We've actually been able to resolve those issues quite quickly with ActiveBatch. In all the time that I've had use of ActiveBatch, it hasn't failed completely once. Uptime is almost 100 percent."
"Error Handling is one of the best standout features of ActiveBatch."
"For developers, it is easy to orchestrate the workflows and the integration has been very easy."
"ActiveBatch has reduced work by providing automated workflows across several different applications."
"The REST API adapters and native integrations for integrating and orchestrating the software stack are very flexible."
"It has helped with scheduling complex jobs with simple scripts."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the versatility of the prebuilt jobs."
"The user-friendly interface has made it easy for fresh users to adopt it."
"The tool can transfer files of any size and type without any issue."
"JSCAPE provides high-level data encryption, which can help us share confidential and time-sensitive data across our global partners without any hassle."
"The product's most valuable feature is the high availability clustering."
"We can send the data quickly and securely."
"It keeps a clear record of all the file transfers that take place, the person who initiated them, and the outcome of the execution."
"Valuable features include a comprehensive management UI and a strictly controlled managed file transfer."
"Automating and managing the file transfer using JSCAPE has decreased the manual interventions necessary and increased the organization's efficiency and productivity."
"They should offer pricing that is more affordable."
"The thing I've noticed the most is the Help function. It's very difficult, at times, to find examples of how to do something. The Help function will explain what the tool does, but we're not a Windows shop at the data warehouse. Our data warehouse jobs actually run on Linux servers. Finding things for Linux-based solutions is not as easy as it is for Windows-based solutions. I would like to see more examples, and more non-Windows examples as well, in the Help."
"The user interface can be improved so that it is more appealing and accessible to new users."
"There are some issues with this version and finding the jobs that it ran. If you're looking at 1,000 different jobs, it shows based on the execution time, not necessarily the run time. So, if there was a constraint waiting, you may be looking for it in the wrong time frame. Plus, with thousands of jobs showing up and the way it pages output jobs, sometimes you end up with multiple pages on the screen, then you have to go through to find the specific job you're looking for. On the opposite side, you can limit the daily activity screen to show only jobs that failed or jobs currently running, which will shrink that back down. However, we have operators who are looking at the whole nightly cycle to make sure everything is there and make sure nothing got blocked or was waiting. Sometimes, they have a hard time finding every item within the list."
"We have faced a couple of issues where we were supposed to log a defect with ActiveBatch. That said, the Active batch Vendor Support is very responsive and reliable."
"Between version 10 and version 12 there was a change. In version 10, they had each object in its own folder. But on the back end, they saw it at the root level. So when we moved over to version 12, everything was in the same area mixed together. It was incredibly difficult and we actually had to create our own folders and move those objects—like schedules, jobs, user accounts—and manually put those into folders, whereas the previous version already had it."
"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."
"They could provide an easier installation guide or technical support to the organizations during the installation process."
"The cost of the tool is relatively high and can pose a problem to medium and small-scale companies who are trying to overcome their on-premise server limitations."
"Support for more complicated workflows, such as conditional logic or branching, could be added to allow users to create more advanced automation processes."
"The product's pricing needs improvement."
"The initial setup is time-consuming; it could use a video tutorial."
"Setup is time-consuming."
"Database crashing was seen whenever there was an overload."
"The user interface is something that has to be worked on."
"The user interface (UI) could be improved."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 5th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 35 reviews while JSCAPE by Redwood is ranked 8th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 21 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while JSCAPE by Redwood is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of JSCAPE by Redwood writes "Versatile, streamlines the entire file transfer procedure, and offers good support". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs and Automic Workload Automation, whereas JSCAPE by Redwood is most compared with Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, MOVEit, Control-M and Fortra's Globalscape Managed File Transfer. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. JSCAPE by Redwood report.
See our list of best Managed File Transfer (MFT) vendors.
We monitor all Managed File Transfer (MFT) 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.
