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.
"One of the most valuable features is the job templates. If we need to create an FTP job, we just drag over the FTP template and fill out the requirements using the variables that ActiveBatch uses. And that makes it reusable. We can create a job once but use it for many different clients."
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"Error Handling is one of the best standout features of ActiveBatch."
"It has helped with scheduling complex jobs with simple scripts."
"For developers, it is easy to orchestrate the workflows and the integration has been very easy."
"We leverage the solution's native integrations regularly. We have to get files from a remote server outside the organization, and even send things outside the organization. We use a lot of its file manipulation and SFTP functionality for contacting remote servers."
"ActiveBatch helped us automate and schedule routine tasks such as data backups, file transfers, database updates, and report generation, which frees IT staff to focus on other studies."
"From a scheduling point of view, it is pretty good."
"For us, the most valuable feature of the solution is the file transfer piece and being able to automate the moving of files around between our various vendors. It reduces the time involved versus somebody having to individually move the files around."
"The most valuable feature is the self-service because it has made it possible to provide simple and quick solutions in the handling of certain tasks."
"We particularly like the fact that it's graphical because it is Windows-based. Before, we were text-based on the mainframe. You can also produce flow charts. Because it's point-and-click, its ease of use is very nice."
"Thus far we have only had a few minor problems, all of which the vendor addressed quickly. We have not encountered any major problems. The product is very stable and reliable."
"Reliability is always important, and the reliability of the system is outstanding."
"The whole product is valuable to us because of the integrations that it has with the MCP and the Windows environments. You have to have the agent on each one of them that you want to monitor. The integrations that we have created are along the lines of extracting files and sending them through SFTP to another vendor. Those are the things that were taking a lot of time away from my staff."
"File Watcher can run jobs when files are made available in a folder."
"Among the numerous valuable features, one standout capability is the implementation of self-service buttons."
"There are very few documents that provide us with detailed information on the troubleshooting of errors that occur during integration with the existing environment."
"The help center and documentation are not that helpful."
"I can't get the cleaning up of logs to work consistently. Right now, we are not setup correctly, and maybe it is something that I have not effectively communicated to them."
"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."
"We have faced a couple of issues where we were supposed to log a defect with ActiveBatch. That said, the Active batch Vendor Support is very responsive and reliable."
"The interface is not that user-friendly and is a little tough to navigate."
"Between version 10 and version 12 there was a change. In version 10, they had each object in its own folder. But on the back end, they saw it at the root level. So when we moved over to version 12, everything was in the same area mixed together. It was incredibly difficult and we actually had to create our own folders and move those objects—like schedules, jobs, user accounts—and manually put those into folders, whereas the previous version already had it."
"Whenever there is an overload, we are seeing crashes happening."
"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."
"We have not explored the possibility, but one of the areas for improvement would be more integration into Active Directory, to where it could do the creation of user accounts and the additional work to integrate third-party systems into payroll systems."
"I think that they're working on this, but I wish that there was a more centralized area to be able to see what other people are doing... They have a community platform for OpCon users, but I want to see more of where somebody is doing this process in that way. They have a great community platform right now, but I feel that it could be developed."
"Upgrading to newer versions remains complex."
"The one area it needs some help in is the mainframe area because that is not its strength. They support the mainframe but it's not something that they are good at."
"The way to view a schedule is called perch view, and that's not always the greatest. It can be quite slow."
"I believe there's room for improvement, and while I think it's something they are considering, I would welcome seeing OpCon integrate with a broader range of systems and third-party products."
"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.
