We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition 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 praised for its strong and scalable nature, as well as its easy implementation. Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition is known for its impressive job definition capabilities, effective error handling, and seamless integration with different systems.
Automic can improve in several areas such as pre-configured automation sets, language compatibility, features, user interface, web-based version, file transfer management, pricing, and SaaS deployment. Redwood has the potential to enhance reporting functionalities, address minor problems, enhance monitoring and alert services, incorporate machine learning capabilities, and offer more comprehensive documentation.
Service and Support: Customers have had differing experiences with Automic Workload Automation's customer service. Some appreciate the prompt response and informative knowledge articles, while others have encountered challenges in contacting the support team. Redwood Software's customer service is generally regarded as satisfactory and beneficial, although there is still room for enhancement.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Automic can take anywhere from one to five days, depending on the size of the project. A small team of one to three individuals is typically enough for this task. Redwood Software's setup is known to be complicated and time-consuming because of its large number of jobs and the complexity of the existing system.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a high setup cost. Redwood Software has a distinct pricing model based on the number of job executions, making it more affordable compared to competitors such as Control-M and UC4.
ROI: The lack of specific ROI numbers and higher costs led to the decision not to renew Automic Workload Automation. Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition has demonstrated positive outcomes with a 10% return on investment.
Comparison Results: Automic Workload Automation is the preferred choice when compared to Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition. Users praise Automic for its strong capabilities, scalability, easy implementation, and comprehensive features. Automic excels in providing control across multiple operating systems and products, which is beneficial for environments with a combination of old and new technologies.
"The product has benefited our organization. It saves time and manpower."
"The most valuable features are its robustness, it's highly scalable, and it's easy to implement."
"We automate very manual, robust tasks, which are very time consuming and not error-free."
"The user interface is very simple and straightforward."
"I use this automation solution, because it is very flexible. This automation solution supports a lot of computer platforms. Also, a lot of operating systems are supported other than automation solutions."
"The current upgrade process is straightforward. They have made the process much simpler. After we get to version 12 and any subsequent versions going forward, it should not require any downtime at all. "
"We use the FTP agent excessively, and the connection is easy to handle between our company and the outside."
"The ability to be able to automate more of our business processes."
"The automated alert response is very useful for long-running and failed jobs during off-business hours."
"We can create and test micro-workflows to find defects sooner."
"With automation in place, employees can focus on more strategic tasks that require human expertise, increasing overall productivity."
"REL expressions are quite helpful for setting up the preconditions."
"Multi-platform scheduling makes it easier this way rather than accessing one platform at a time."
"There are various ways in which you can construct jobs depending on your business needs and requirements."
"Error handling and the recovery feature ensure that my job processes are not stopped if any error occurs."
"It is very easy and easy to use, and minimal supervision is required to run it."
"It has a very complicated interface, which could be made to be more user-friendly."
"The direction in which the UI is going is concerning to me. It does not offer the security context we would need to implement future versions. While I see benefit in the Web UI, the security it would lack in separating a user's experience from an administrator's experience is an issue for us. MFA functionality is required since we're dealing with connectivity to the POS and for PCI/SOX compliance."
"The versioning and support for the lifecycle of Automic's developed solution is what we were missing. However, this is coming in version 12.2, so I am looking forward to seeing how it works."
"The SSH agent is missing in version 12.1. Maybe it would be a good addition to see on the web client of the next version of Atomic."
"There are some monitoring features that could be added."
"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."
"Our users are used to the flatline of the UC4. When we introduced the AVI, they are not interested nor motivated to use it."
"It is very difficult to migrate. The release automation should be in one package."
"Due to the abundance of competing automation technologies available on the market, connectivity with any cloud platform can be improved."
"The reports are downloaded in .CAR file format, which makes it difficult to convert to an Excel file."
"Having a graphical user interface for the dashboard would be great."
"The product can improve customer service."
"We need the ability to pull data into an Excel format."
"Customer support should be enhanced so that we can automatically raise tickets and incidents in customer service."
"The price wise, it is not affordable. When we compare with other industry leading softwares and even the same scale, there are certain softwares that can compete with Redwood, but Redwood is very highly paced.So it is more SAP friendly, I would say, at this point. Since it was owned by SAP for very long time, they have made it SAP friendly. But if you look at the tool as a enterprise tool. Like, in general, it is not really that great as a tool. So you can you have better options when you couple it with SAP. But if you would like to control your enterprise level applications, anything after that, like, Azure AWS and things like that Oracle."
"We need the automatic creation of incidents for failed jobs."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Redwood RunMyJobs is ranked 3rd in Workload Automation with 30 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Redwood RunMyJobs is rated 9.6. 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 Redwood RunMyJobs writes "Simple to use, increases CPU speed, and reduces the cost of machine time". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and Tidal by Redwood, whereas Redwood RunMyJobs is most compared with Control-M, Stonebranch, Tidal by Redwood, AutoSys Workload Automation and ActiveBatch by Redwood. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Redwood RunMyJobs 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.