We performed a comparison between AutoSys Workload Automation and IBM Workload Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AutoSys Workload Automation is highly recommended for its scalability, ease of use, speed, and availability. Users appreciate its excellent job arrangement, task triggering, real-time batch processing view, software process integration, and user-friendly interface. The file transfer protocol and file watcher features are also praised. IBM Workload Automation is known for its ability to incorporate user-requested features, trigger jobs in multiple nodes, and conveniently track batch applications.
AutoSys Workload Automation users have expressed a need for integration with cloud services, simplified reporting and comparison of job performance, customizable reporting features and alerts, smoother migrations, enhanced handling of file transfer jobs, and the ability to monitor and manage workload windows. IBM Workload Automation users have encountered performance problems, navigation difficulties, challenges with daily schedule refreshes, complex simulation, stability and reporting visibility enhancements, and alignment with new technologies.
Service and Support: Users have positive feedback about the customer service of AutoSys Workload Automation, describing it as excellent, beneficial, and quick to respond. IBM Workload Automation also offers exceptional technical support, which customers depend on for problems that are out of their control. Nonetheless, there may be difficulties in pinpointing the origin of specific issues.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for AutoSys Workload Automation is considered to be simple, straightforward, and quick, while the setup for IBM Workload Automation can be difficult for those who are unfamiliar with IBM tools.
Pricing: The setup cost for AutoSys Workload Automation involves a yearly subscription, an annual license, and a one-time license for the server setup. The pricing for IBM Workload Automation is dependent on the customer's contract and can fluctuate depending on the number of agents installed.
ROI: The effectiveness of AutoSys Workload Automation in terms of ROI is influenced by factors such as the size of the organization, the complexity of the workload, and the efficiency of its implementation. IBM Workload Automation focuses on enhancing efficiency, minimizing expenses, and boosting productivity.
Comparison Results: AutoSys Workload Automation is the preferred choice compared to IBM Workload Automation. Users appreciate AutoSys for its easy setup process, scalability, ease of use, speed, and availability. It offers a user-friendly interface, file transfer protocol, and file watcher features.
"It has allowed us to automate many of the functions of our operations staff. For instance, we had production control staff spending two hours a day entering date parms into our daily business processes. And now, CA Workload Automation does it for us."
"Automation of patch process."
"The most valuable features of AutoSys Workload Automation are the file transfer protocol and file watcher. The solution has a user-friendly user interface. It is very simple to use. You have a scope of all your jobs, jobs are what you call tasks that you will automate in the solution. It lets you monitor everything in these jobs."
"We use CA Workload Automation AE r11.3.6 to automate enterprise-wide scheduling and file transfers using an FTP plugin."
"The aggregator reporting utility which tells us our throughput in lag and latency."
"It is stable, it works, and it does what it is supposed to."
"We don't have to manually run things anymore. We can have the work that a team of 50 people would do, all inside of one platform."
"It is very valuable for us when we are trying to arrange or orchestrate jobs into a system. It is helpful for triggering jobs for a scheduled task."
"The support from Cisco is very good. I was with them as a company for 40 years"
"The initial setup is easy."
"The most important feature is the creation of folders. It's a really great feature because you can organize the process with naming conventions."
"The project we worked on involved the running of nearly 24,000 job instances in a single day, so I would say that the solution is stable."
"The technical support is great, the product is easy-to-use, and it is stable."
"I have supported this product in literally 100s of different environments and its unmatched in its ability to scale to any size."
"Provides a robust, full spectrum enterprise-wide WLA platform."
"This solution has a request feature where users can request the added features they need to have developed. Based on client voting for those features, these are developed and released."
"There is a difference between a web interface and the thick client interface. We particularly like a thick client interface, and it has gone away."
"We see improvement possibilities in the processing provision of predefined evaluations or individual objects, or in the Self Service portal, which can be used by any user to monitor objects or start objects."
"I am looking forward to more of their dashboard features. I think it would be very valuable for us to have dashboard features that could be delivered to our customers in the form of a URL, and they could refresh that URL whenever they wanted to get up to date performance metrics out of our systems."
"To make it a lot more user-friendly, in order to make it so other people can use it without having to do much training with it; the more user-friendly it is, the easier it is to work with."
"Some support issues need to be addressed, but not through email, through personal contact via phone or WebEx."
"Needs better documentation with fully explained examples for some of the job types."
"Performance improvements in the UI would be appreciated."
"CA installation processes are never anything but complex."
"It is missing some features and can improve in areas where the competition is somewhat better like linking job dependencies."
"This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly."
"The configuration of IBM Workload Automation has some challenges. We have a difficult time customizing it, but it is similar to other solutions."
"It should support other schedulers that aren't IBM products."
"The schedule refreshes daily and that's a challenge for us."
"Slow down on the releases a bit. I fully understand that IWA functionality is increasing at an amazing rate, but trying to keep up with the upgrades is rough."
"Scalability-wise, it can be a little bit challenging."
"There should be more custom documentation, specifically around Java APIs. There should also be more training. In terms of features, we are currently using only 50% of its features. We don't use all features that are available, but there is always room for improvement in all of the tools."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while IBM Workload Automation is ranked 13th in Workload Automation with 28 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while IBM Workload Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Workload Automation writes "With an easy setup phase in place, agent-based installation can be done in minutes". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Automic Workload Automation, Stonebranch and CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas IBM Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, HCL Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Tidal by Redwood and BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager. See our AutoSys Workload Automation vs. IBM Workload Automation 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.