We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch 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: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly regarded for its flexibility and wide range of capabilities, including prebuilt tasks, live monitoring, and automatic scheduling. Rocket Zena is commended for its user-friendly design, intuitive interface, diagram functionality, and the ability to schedule jobs across multiple platforms.
ActiveBatch Workload Automation could benefit from enhancements in managed file transfer, transition to a subscription model, cloud aspect, user interface, reliability of triggers, monitoring dashboard, price, documentation, and integration with cloud platforms and DevOps tools. Rocket Zena could improve visibility into connections between applications, monitoring of agents, process limitations, UI loading time, intuitiveness of UI, installation process, task stacking, documentation, distributed platform availability, server communication, and notification feature.
Service and Support: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has been praised for its customer service, as it offers helpful and reliable technical support. However, some customers have expressed concerns regarding the escalation process. Rocket Zena is also known for its positive customer service, with support staff who are knowledgeable and responsive. However, obtaining higher-level support may require more time.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation was straightforward and uncomplicated, with no significant challenges encountered. However, there was a minor need for additional documentation during the file import process. Setting up Rocket Zena was more varied for users, with some finding it intricate and necessitating comprehension of various components. The integration with SAP posed a particular difficulty.
Pricing: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has a straightforward and quick setup process, with users finding the pricing to be fair and competitive. Rocket Zena is seen as a cost-effective and affordable choice, particularly suitable for smaller businesses.
ROI: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has proven to be highly effective in enhancing net revenue, resulting in noteworthy growth. Rocket Zena offers time-saving benefits and enhances accuracy in job scheduling, thereby reducing stress for engineers and administrators.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly preferred over Rocket Zena. Users appreciate ActiveBatch's simplicity, versatile features, scalability, and extensive automation capabilities. They find value in the prebuilt jobs, real-time monitoring, and automatic scheduling. ActiveBatch's extensive features and overall ease of use are highly valued.
"The Jobs Library has been a tremendous asset. For the most, that's what we use. There are some outliers, but we pretty much integrate those Jobs Library steps throughout the process, whether it's REST calls, FTP processes, or file copies and moves... That has helped us to build end-to-end workflows."
"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 REST API adapters and native integrations for integrating and orchestrating the software stack are very flexible."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the versatility of the prebuilt jobs."
"Error Handling is one of the best standout features of ActiveBatch."
"It has helped with scheduling complex jobs with simple scripts."
"Managing the workload and monitoring the tasks were very difficult with manual interventions. Now, by using ActiveBatch, the process is automated and it runs tasks on a scheduled basis."
"What ActiveBatch allows you to do is develop a more efficient process. It gave me visibility into all my jobs so I could choose which jobs to run in parallel. This is much easier than when I have to try to do it through cron for Windows XP, where you really can't do things in parallel and know what is going on."
"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."
"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."
"I have used other tools with similar capabilities; it's the ease of use."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the FTP file transfer."
"I like the whole product, but specifically, I like the license part. It's very easy to acquire a license for this product."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Some of the advanced features in the user interface are a bit confusing even after referring to the documents."
"It could be easier to provide dashboards on how many jobs are running at the same time; more monitoring."
"Providing some detailed training materials could be very helpful for new users who have very limited technical information about the tool."
"The monitoring dashboard could have been more user-friendly so that in the monitoring dashboard itself we can see the total number of jobs created in the system and how many were currently active/scheduled/chained."
"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."
"A nice thing to have would be the ability to comfortably pass variables from one job to another. That was one of the things that I found difficult."
"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."
"The UI is not intuitive, and it would be nice if there was a web interface."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The documentation has room for improvement."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while Rocket Zena is ranked 12th in Workload Automation with 9 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while Rocket Zena is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rocket Zena writes "A continuously evolving, stable solution, with responsive support". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood and Redwood RunMyJobs, whereas Rocket Zena is most compared with Control-M, Rocket Zeke, IBM Workload Automation and AutoSys Workload Automation. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood 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.