We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Stonebranch Universal Automation Center 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 appreciated for its strong and flexible capability, scalability, and straightforward setup process. It provides extensive control over various operating systems and products, accompanied by pre-designed templates and convenient access through web browsers. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center stands out in terms of efficiency, visually appealing graphical representation, and the capability to establish dependencies between different tasks. It offers an intuitive solution, regularly enhances its software, and provides valuable technical support.
Automic Workload Automation has room for improvement in terms of industry standardization, plug-and-play automation processes, language support, functionality, user interface, web-based edition, manage file transfer area, and pricing. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could enhance its offerings by providing cloud deployment, improving analytics, offering a mobile app for task monitoring, and collaborating with the vendor for future releases.
Service and Support: The customer service for Automic Workload Automation has garnered varying feedback, as some customers encountered challenges when trying to contact the support team. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is widely commended for its exceptional and consistently accessible technical support.
Ease of Deployment: The setup for Automic Workload Automation can take anywhere from one to five days, depending on the project size. The setup for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is considered average in terms of ease, with the deployment process lasting approximately six months. Implementation can take one to two years.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a high setup cost. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is more affordable compared to its rivals, making it a favored option among businesses.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation did not offer specific ROI figures, but the user opted not to renew the license in order to reduce costs. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center led to a cost reduction.
Comparison Results: Automic Workload Automation is favored over Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. Users appreciate Automic's strength, scalability, and ease of implementation, as well as its extensive features and architecture. Automic is considered user-friendly with a simple interface.
"All the components that it can use to design work flow; process automation."
"It works to automate business processes over all the systems. You have a central point where you can automate everything."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the scheduler."
"We do not have different automated silos. We have one view for our operators, which are doing things 24/7, and need just one interface, not multiple ones."
"A good piece of software is like a good referee. If it's doing good, you don't notice it. That's the good thing about Automic. We don't even notice that it's there a lot of the time. It's a very, very stable product."
"The workflow allows us to integrate multiple applications into one flow and come up with a business result."
"Number one, A+, is the scripting language, and the ability to go in, and take an already robust, consistent, strong tool, and turn it into an incredibly scalable, flexible tool, that you can literally do anything you want to with."
"Automic Workload Automation is a highly complex yet versatile tool."
"The most valuable feature is the reliability of the agents, because we need them accessible and we need to run stuff. The agent technology and compatibility are top-notch."
"I love the Universal Controller. It's been great for us. We host it on-premise... It's High Availability, meaning there's failover from one server to the other if one goes down."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"Stonebranch performs well, and the graphical representation is excellent. Overall, it requires more technical effort from our teams, but the solution is intuitive, so anybody can use it."
"The ability to monitor tasks that are on the open-system side as well as our mainframe side gives us a one-window view of all our processes."
"The Universal Agent is the most valuable feature. Being agent-based and being able to go across multiple technology stacks, which is what our workflows do, Stonebranch gives us the ability to bridge those disparate technologies. It enables us to remove the dependency-gap with the agent so we know the status of the workflow at each step."
"I like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"I would like to see features from "Prompt" sets in read Masks."
"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."
"The hotline can take a long time. They will say, "I will take it and give it to the Level 2 support.""
"I am heading up the AWI. I desperately miss the possibility to show my read-only users on the Explorer side only their folders, not all the folders."
"I should be able to grant a user access to execute a job without having to directly list every include, prompt set, output scan, script, login, etc. An inherited read for execution purposes would accomplish the same results without making the admin list every single object every time, as well as deny the user the ability to edit."
"There are some scripting elements that could be added."
"The scalability is limited by the SQL in the background, and that is a problem."
"From my point of view, the current product needs more stability."
"There is a component called the OMS, which is the message broker. We rely on infrastructure, resiliency, and availability for that piece. If that could change to be highly available just as a software component, so that we don't have to provide the high-available storage, etc. for it, that would be a plus. It would just be cheaper to run."
"One hiccup we've had is due to the fact that we have other internal scheduling tools. We're able to talk to them, but we have trouble with some of the networking between them, so we're still trying to work out the kinks there."
"The Universal Controller is decent for the money it costs... It needs some work to have full features, compared to other products that are out there, specifically IBM's Workload Scheduler."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"It would be ideal if they had the exact same features as the CA Workload Automation DE series. It would be helpful to have calendaring options."
"Occasionally, we have an agent that doesn't come back up after patching. That doesn't happen very often... It's really just a restart of the agent and it comes back up. But that might be one thing that could be improved."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"There is room for improvement with its connectivity with the Microsoft SRS system. It is very weak. They keep telling us it works with it, and technically it does, but it does not provide a lot of visibility. We have lost a lot of visibility migrating to Stonebranch, compared with just running tasks on the SRS server. That's really about the only thing that is a sore point for us."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. 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 Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and HCL Workload Automation, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Tidal by Redwood. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Stonebranch 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.
