We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Rocket Zena 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 regarded for its strength, scalability, and straightforward setup. Rocket Zena receives acclaim for its user-friendliness, intuitive interface, and the inclusion of diagrams. Automic excels in managing various operating systems and products, whereas Zena streamlines processes and ensures a pleasant user experience.
Automic Workload Automation has room for improvement in industry standardization, plug-and-play automation processes, language support, user interface, web-based edition, file transfer capabilities, pricing, and support. Rocket Zena requires enhancements in visibility, agent monitoring, process limitations, error alerts, UI loading time, intuitive UI, RPM packages, task stacking, documentation, accessibility, server communication, and agent functionality.
Service and Support: Automic Workload Automation has a varied reputation for customer service. Some customers appreciate the prompt responses and informative articles, while others struggle to reach the support team. The duration for issue resolution is also a concern. Rocket Zena's customer service garners praise for its knowledgeable and responsive technical support. However, acquiring higher-level support may require more time.
Ease of Deployment: Automic Workload Automation has a relatively quick and efficient initial setup that can be completed by a small team in a matter of days. Rocket Zena's setup process can take longer, ranging from a day to two weeks, and involves understanding various components.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a high setup cost. Rocket Zena is seen as cost-effective and affordable, making it a suitable choice for small companies.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation did not offer precise ROI figures and was not renewed due to cost-saving efforts. Rocket Zena has resulted in notable time savings, and enhanced accuracy, and is deemed an indispensable tool with a favorable return on investment.
Comparison Results: Rocket Zena is the preferred choice when compared to Automic Workload Automation. Users appreciate its ease of use, intuitive interface, and simplified processes. They find it to be user-friendly, especially in comparison to similar products. Rocket Zena also offers containerized deployment with Docker, cross-platform job scheduling, and a web-based client, making it more usable.
"With the automation, we are able to provide background services. It is very economical and not possible to do manually."
"It's easy to use. When you schedule jobs, if you can speak English you can schedule them easily and correctly. Also, there's a lot of flexibility because the product allows you to do many tasks, in multiple ways, so you can choose the way that works best for your environment."
"There are a lot of features which help us get a stable application. It is easy to have a stable production line, because this app supports us very well."
"It is 100% stable. We have no downtime. We have 24/7 production throughout the year."
"We have seen improvements in time efficiency and cost resources, because we are mainly focused on the SAP area, and its automation in that part."
"It is easy to manage and customize the system. It performs well."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that we can control between a lot of operating systems and other products because we have a lot of old and new products in our environment. It helps us to control all of them together."
"The ability to be able to automate more of our business processes."
"From a Linux configuration point of view, Rocket Zena is straightforward. It's fairly easy to set up the server and agents once you know how to do it."
"Its FTP feature is very good, as is scheduling any process or task with the Zena client. I have found it to be very helpful. If a task fails, it gives you a prompt."
"We haven't had any problems since we installed it. It runs as expected, we haven't had any critical problems. It helps keeps the business running 24/7."
"In the latest upgrade, Zena added a web-based client. The more I use it, the more I like it. It's an excellent interface. They do a good job of steadily improving the solution to make it more useful."
"The most valuable feature is the FTP file transfer."
"I have found the scheduling feature the most valuable. I can map dependencies by using ASG-Zena. It gives a nice, quick visualization as to where things are."
"You can click Ctrl-G and bring a diagram view. You're able to view in a diagram format. The view that it provides is easy, and you can move to the left, up, or down. You can double-click on a certain process. It'll drill into that process and all of its underlying components. You can double-click on an arrow or a component, and it'll bring up a screen that'll have all the variables that are assigned to that particular piece, as well as the values at run time. So, the diagram feature of it, at least for me, is pretty valuable."
"I have used other tools with similar capabilities; it's the ease of use."
"I would like to see more types of Calendars in the next release of this solution."
"The forecast and long-term planning could be made a little better when you work with it in the future."
"The scalability is limited by the SQL in the background, and that is a problem."
"I would like to see more stability in the product and have the transition between versions be more seamless."
"It would be better if it was easier to view the automated processes."
"There are some scripting elements that could be added."
"For the user interface of version 12.1, I cannot find a lot of utilities and objects from previous versions, making me change my habits. This is not good."
"I would also like to see a little bit more connectivity, more, "Play nice with other toys." For instance, we have IServ as our primary tool for our service request tickets. In order for it to play nice with Automic, we had to actually create a file and put it somewhere, where Automic can see it. I would like to see more connectivity with other tools, or more compatibility with other tools."
"The UI is not intuitive, and it would be nice if there was a web interface."
"In the next release, I would like the user experience to be improved. The user interface should be more appealing to gen-z."
"One area where it could be improved is communication between the different servers. Sometimes there are processes that have already been completed but we get a status notification that they're still active."
"Another one that is probably a little bit bigger for me is that when there is an issue or there's an error, it writes on a different screen. I have to find the actual process name and go to a different screen to view the alert that got generated. On that screen, everyone's processes, not just the processes of the folks in my department, are thrown. It takes me a while to find the actual error so that I could go in there and look at the alert. It could be because of the way it was set up, but at least for me, it isn't too intuitive."
"The scheduling mapping is a little disjointed. There is no wizard-type approach. There are a lot of different things that you have to do in completely different areas. They could probably add the functionality for creating all components of a mapping or an OPA schedule. The component creation could be done collectively rather than through individual components."
"In the web interface, it stacks the tasks across the top, and they accumulate until you close or clean those out. That seems a little cumbersome. You must right-click and close all tabs constantly to keep the console clean and manage your views."
"Rocket Zena is a mainframe-based job scheduler. I would like it to be more open so that we can use it on a distributed platform."
"In the next release, I would like to have an alert feature to indicate when an agent is down. Rocket Zena is not capable of sending alerts that the agent is down. As of now, you have manually monitor to see when the agent is down."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Rocket Zena is ranked 12th in Workload Automation with 9 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Rocket Zena is rated 8.4. 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 Rocket Zena writes "A continuously evolving, stable solution, with responsive support". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and AppWorx Workload Automation, whereas Rocket Zena is most compared with Control-M, Rocket Zeke, IBM Workload Automation, AutoSys Workload Automation and ActiveBatch by Redwood. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Rocket Zena 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.