We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch Workload Automation and OpCon 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 ability to adapt to different needs, offering prebuilt jobs and a user-friendly configuration. Its real-time monitoring and scalability are also notable features, as is its compatibility with various platforms. OpCon is commended for its flexibility and self-service capabilities, particularly in automating manual tasks. It also boasts a visually appealing graphical interface and the ability to seamlessly integrate with other systems.
ActiveBatch could enhance its managed file transfer, user interface, reliability of triggers, monitoring dashboard, documentation, support service, software setup process, email alerts, lag and stability issues, customization options, pricing, and customer support. OpCon could improve its web-based interface, upgrading process, documentation, logs, self-service functionality, cost, self-service capabilities, custom job subtypes, integration with FICS, and mainframe support.
Service and Support: ActiveBatch Workload Automation receives praise for its customer service, particularly for its helpful and reliable technical support. However, some users have expressed concerns about the service model and availability of the hotline. OpCon also receives positive feedback for its customer service, with a great support team that prioritizes urgent issues and offers timely and effective solutions.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is straightforward and uncomplicated, although there is a small requirement for additional instructions when importing files and configuring it on various systems. OpCon's initial setup can be intricate, but with support from SMA consultants, it becomes more seamless and manageable.
Pricing: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is straightforward and quick, with users finding the pricing to be fair and competitive. OpCon is recognized as a costly and intricate solution that demands time for understanding, however, it offers good value for the investment.
ROI: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has been commended for its positive financial impact, leading to a notable rise in net revenue. Users find it valuable, even though they have limited understanding of ROI monitoring. OpCon is praised for its time-saving capabilities, error reduction, and elimination of the requirement for full-time operators.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is the favored choice compared to OpCon. Users appreciate ActiveBatch's simplicity and user-friendly setup. ActiveBatch is also commended for its versatility and easy configuration, providing prebuilt jobs and an intuitive interface.
"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."
"ActiveBatch's Self-Service Portal allows our business units to run and monitor their own workloads. They can simply run and review the logs, but they can't modify them. It increases their productivity because they are able to take care of things on their own. It saves us time from having to rerun the scripts, because the business units can just go ahead and log in and and rerun it themselves."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the versatility of the prebuilt jobs."
"The automation feature is a very valuable feature as the associates do not have to worry about performing repetitive tasks (i.e. endpoint security scans on a daily basis) that would take several hours to complete on a daily basis."
"There are hundreds of pre-built steps."
"It can connect to a number of third-party/legacy systems."
"The REST API adapters and native integrations for integrating and orchestrating the software stack are very flexible."
"For developers, it is easy to orchestrate the workflows and the integration has been very easy."
"OpCon has also reduced our data processing times because of the way you can build out workflows. It can run things in sequence. It's not restricted to a linear process, so you can run multiple jobs at once, allowing for multi-threaded jobs."
"The automation of processes is the most valuable feature. One of the major hurdles for us over the last few years, before we found OpCon, was to make our nightly process happen automatically. Being a bank, we have nightly update processes that have to happen for posting transactions, for example, and it was a huge load off our department to have that automated."
"Among the numerous valuable features, one standout capability is the implementation of self-service buttons."
"The most valuable feature of OpCon is its scheduling capability, particularly for automating file transfers with vendors."
"The core system is the most valuable part: being able to view the processes that we've never really been able to view as a whole before. That is super-helpful, as is being alerted when issues arise."
"It is so simplistic that it gives us peace of mind. Before, we had all these processes that were run manually, such as different file transfers and jobs running for our core at certain times. Now, all that stuff is done automatically."
"File Watcher can run jobs when files are made available in a folder."
"Having the jobs laid out while attaching dependencies is a nice addition to the program."
"One thing I've noticed is that navigation can be difficult unless you are familiar with the structure that we have in place. If someone else had to look at our ActiveBatch console and find a job, they might not know where to find it."
"It could be easier to provide dashboards on how many jobs are running at the same time; more monitoring."
"The interface is not that user-friendly and is a little tough to navigate."
"Whenever there is an overload, we are seeing crashes happening."
"Some improvements can be made to the user interface."
"The reporting needs improvement. There is a real need for the ability to generate audit reports on the fly. It needs to be a lot easier than what I can do right now. This is a major item for me."
"ActiveBatch is a little complex."
"They should offer pricing that is more affordable."
"The FICS integration is a little bit clunky. We've had some tickets with their support team, and sometimes they couldn't figure it out, but that probably has more to do with FICS than with OpCon."
"The calendar interface and the frequency interface is a very powerful, yet complex, section of OpCon in which all our staff have made mistakes. They have implemented what they believed was logically correct and then afterward discovered that their logic was flawed because OpCon did it a different way. That part, which is incredibly useful, is also incredibly dangerous. The interface or the ability to directly do more functions within the frequency definitely has room for expansion. As good as it is, it can be a lot better."
"It was hard to automate in the beginning because there were a lot of concepts. I had to learn a lot of things, as I never used such a software before. I learned a lot of the concepts and ideas behind it in the beginning."
"There is room for improvement needed around setting up the calendars and frequencies. I would like more flexibility in what jobs run. Sometimes, with frequencies, I can't find what I want to without putting a little more labor into it."
"I would like more web-based training from SMA. That would be nice. Our primary OpCon representative is phenomenal, but we would like some training opportunities for learning on our own. When I started utilizing OpCon, the sheer breadth of it made for a very daunting task. I was almost fearful to start, not to mention fearful to go change things and possibly hinder a job."
"I would like to have an interface with PowerShell. PowerShell has a lot of functionality. We use it a lot because we're a Windows shop. Having a built-in tool or interface with PowerShell would go a long way."
"I might like to see a little bit more of a seamless user interface. That would be good. They're moving towards a browser-type interface, rather than the Java application that we currently use. Also, a little bit more built-in self-service would be good, rather than a standalone product."
"There are some limitations in the actual jobs that are created and how you're able to rename files. Suppose you're bringing in, say, 10, 15, or 20 reports from a core system, and you're using an "asterisk character" to identify files. For example, if you're grabbing files that start with this, end with this, but the characters in between could be different, it has to retain that same name in the destination. It won't allow you to rename them with a date stamp or the like."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while OpCon is ranked 9th in Workload Automation with 56 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while OpCon is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpCon writes "Gives us the ability to schedule dependent jobs across different mainframes". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs and Rocket Zena, whereas OpCon is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Automic Workload Automation and IBM Workload Automation. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. OpCon 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.
