We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch 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: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly regarded for its versatility and ease of use. It offers prebuilt jobs, real-time monitoring, and automatic scheduling. Users appreciate the REST API adapters and native integrations. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is praised for its performance and graphical representation. Users find its ability to set dependencies between jobs and rerun functions beneficial. The graphical user interface and task monitor are user-friendly.
ActiveBatch Workload Automation has opportunities for improvement in various aspects such as managed file transfer, user interface, trigger reliability, monitoring dashboard, and integration with DevOps tools. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could enhance its offerings through cloud availability, advanced analytics, and a mobile app for convenient job hour monitoring and calculation.
Service and Support: ActiveBatch has received mostly positive feedback for its customer service, with users appreciating the helpful and reliable technical support. However, there are suggestions for improvement. Stonebranch has received high praise for its customer service, with users describing it as very good, excellent, and always available to provide assistance.
Ease of Deployment: The initial setup for ActiveBatch is straightforward and uncomplicated, with minimal challenges. However, there is a slight requirement for additional documentation when importing files. The setup for Stonebranch is deemed average in terms of simplicity, with some difficulties arising from the intricate infrastructure. Stonebranch offers support during the migration process and promptly addresses configuration and maintenance problems.
Pricing: The setup cost for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is straightforward and can be done quickly. Users find the pricing reasonable and competitive compared to other options. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is more affordable than its rivals, which makes it a favored choice for businesses.
ROI: ActiveBatch has proven to be highly effective, delivering valuable features and driving a notable boost in net revenue. Although specific ROI figures are not provided, the platform has garnered praise for its positive outcomes. Stonebranch stands out for its impressive cost savings.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is the preferred choice when comparing it to Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. Users appreciate ActiveBatch's ease of use during setup, as well as its versatility and prebuilt jobs for streamlined batch processing and process automation. The software's scalability, automation, and administration console are also highly praised.
"Since I started using this product, I have been able to easily track everything as it mainly monitors, alerts, and looks after all the services - even across platform scheduling - which has helped me immensely."
"The user interface is really incredible."
"From a scheduling point of view, it is pretty good."
"The REST API adapters and native integrations for integrating and orchestrating the software stack are very flexible."
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"ActiveBatch has reduced work by providing automated workflows across several different applications."
"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."
"There are hundreds of pre-built steps."
"The Universal Agent is the most valuable feature. Being agent-based and being able to go across multiple technology stacks, which is what our workflows do, Stonebranch gives us the ability to bridge those disparate technologies. It enables us to remove the dependency-gap with the agent so we know the status of the workflow at each step."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"Stonebranch performs well, and the graphical representation is excellent. Overall, it requires more technical effort from our teams, but the solution is intuitive, so anybody can use it."
"The ability to monitor tasks that are on the open-system side as well as our mainframe side gives us a one-window view of all our processes."
"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."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"I like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"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."
"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."
"Some improvements can be made to the user interface."
"Some of the advanced features in the user interface are a bit confusing even after referring to the documents."
"Any product is going to have some room for improvement, no matter what. I see the company has already ventured into AWS and they're constantly trying to improve the managed file transfer which they have recently improvised. I think they bought a software called JSCAPE and they're trying to improve it, which is good. I am not sure if JSCAPE would be part of the base product but currently, you have to buy a separate license for it, which doesn't make sense. If it was Microsoft, ServiceNow, or integrating with other software vendors, I would understand but JSCAPE is now in-house and I'm not sure if they can justify having a separate license for JSCAPE. I would probably expect them to be packaging JSCAPE into the base product. They did switch over from a perpetual license model to a subscription model, which hurt the company a little bit. Nobody is offering the perpetual model anymore. As long as the transition is fair for both the companies, I think it should be fine and not burn us out."
"It does have a little bit of a learning curve because it is fairly complex. You have to learn how it does things. I don't know if it's any worse than any other tool would be, just because of the nature of what it does... the learning curve is the hardest part."
"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."
"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 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."
"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."
"Occasionally, we have an agent that doesn't come back up after patching. That doesn't happen very often... It's really just a restart of the agent and it comes back up. But that might be one thing that could be improved."
"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."
"One hiccup we've had is due to the fact that we have other internal scheduling tools. We're able to talk to them, but we have trouble with some of the networking between them, so we're still trying to work out the kinks there."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"I have a request regarding our agent on the mainframe. It may time out when communicating to the Universal Controller, when the mainframe is extremely busy. That can cause a task which is running at that time to not see the results of the job that ran on the mainframe. It happens sporadically during times of really busy CPU usage. We're expecting that enhancement from them in the fourth quarter."
"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."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs and IBM Workload Automation, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and IBM Workload Automation. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood 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.
