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.
"Automation helps us. It makes our lives easier. Anything that can be automated is automated."
"I have found new methods for converting scripts from Dollar U to ONE Automation. For example, I take the dynamic library from Dollar U and put it in the dynamic binary library in ONE Automation. This enables us to use Dollar U scripts in ONE Automation."
"The scalability is good because you can add on as many services and processes as you want."
"It is reliable. We have never had any unplanned crashes."
"It integrates well with the CICD pipeline."
"We have seen big improvements in automation and automated tasks allowing our people to work on more important things for the company, as well as getting financial data quicker."
"We have seen a cost improvement from it."
"We have a lot of governance and compliance requirements as a bank that we can fulfill with this product."
"In Redwood Automation, we can easily fetch the daily reports from the system as per the client's requirement and track the status of every job which is running, aborted, or canceled."
"It is very easy and easy to use, and minimal supervision is required to run it."
"There won't be a memory outage issue, as it uses its own server/ECC memory only."
"REL expressions are quite helpful for setting up the preconditions."
"Redwood RunMyJobs has been very useful for job scheduling and checking and monitoring jobs."
"Error handling and the recovery feature ensure that my job processes are not stopped if any error occurs."
"There are various ways in which you can construct jobs depending on your business needs and requirements."
"One of Redwood Software's features that I liked was its event-driven automation, which allows IT teams to respond to real-time events, alerts, and notifications from numerous systems."
"Some of the usual features, like calendar details, are now not there."
"I would like more training on workload automation, because I do not have a complete insight of the product yet."
"There were many bugs in the last version. For example, we could only use capital letters for searching for agent names. Also, we had a problem with ONE Automation where we couldn't use the PGA and SGA in Oracle Databases for resolving RAM because the last version didn't have this capability."
"Choosing Automic Workload Automation essentially locks us into their ecosystem, making it nearly impossible to switch to a different product."
"We would also like improved SLR monitoring. There are SLR objects, but I can't define an SLR object plus one, or end days. I can only do it for one day. As we are time shifting to another day, it is not possible. This should be improved."
"I would like to see more types of Calendars in the next release of this solution."
"There could be a better user interface for end users. They should make it more intuitive, not based on Java."
"In terms of what can be improved, we are in Israel, so we work in Hebrew. Now they are starting to move it also from English to Hebrew and to support the language, but for us it has been very difficult because the Hebrew looks like gibberish. So there are language issues."
"We'd like to see an integration with ServiceNow to raise the tickets/incidents in ServiceNow."
"The product can improve customer service."
"The only issue at first was that we had to manually delete or raise the event in order to run some of the events and wait for jobs, even if the file was kept at the correct AL11 position."
"Redwood RunMyJobs should add more good features."
"Customer support should be enhanced so that we can automatically raise tickets and incidents in customer service."
"Adding machine learning and AI capabilities would enable Redwood to automate more complex business processes and tasks."
"Currently, our developers aren't able to access their own objects in the user acceptance testing server and production system server as they are assigned the developer access role, which is kind of a solid role, and no changes or additions can be made to it."
"It lacks some of the common reporting features. I'm a bit surprised that there aren't some standard reports to be able to extract any data on usage. They've described to us that customers have different reporting needs, so they let them develop those, but reporting is a common need. It would be helpful to have it as part of the solution."
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.