We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch Workload Automation and AutoSys Workload Automation 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 known for its versatility and ease of use, as well as its prebuilt jobs and real-time monitoring. It also has a strong alerting mechanism and excels in workload distribution and integration capabilities.AutoSys Workload Automation is highly acclaimed for its scalability and ease of use, as well as its speed and availability. It is particularly valued for job scheduling and orchestrating tasks.
ActiveBatch users would like to see enhancements in licensing, user interface, trigger reliability, monitoring dashboard, documentation, support services, cloud capabilities, and pricing. AutoSys users desire integration with cloud services, better reporting and monitoring capabilities, improved workflow management, and enhanced workload window management.
Service and Support: Users have praised ActiveBatch for its helpful and reliable technical support, which includes workarounds, a clear knowledge base, and APIs. AutoSys receives high praise for its very good, helpful, and responsive support. Users see the support team for both products as sufficient and capable, with a standardized approach and a mature product.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is uncomplicated, although there could be improved documentation for file importing. However, configuring it on varied environments like Windows and Linux can be challenging. AutoSys Workload Automation setup is described as effortless, direct, and fairly rapid, taking around 10 minutes or less with minimal clicks. For more intricate setups, a complete implementation may require a month or two.
Pricing: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has an uncomplicated and quick setup process, with users finding the pricing fair and competitive. AutoSys Workload Automation offers different pricing and licensing choices, with some users perceiving it as costly.
ROI: Users have praised ActiveBatch Workload Automation for its positive financial impact, such as a notable rise in net revenue. AutoSys Workload Automation provides various advantages like heightened productivity, enhanced efficiency, cost savings, improved visibility and control, and decreased downtime.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is the preferred choice when compared to AutoSys Workload Automation. Users appreciate ActiveBatch's simplicity in setup and implementation, its versatility, ease of use, and extensive library of prebuilt job steps. They also value its real-time monitoring and scalability.
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the versatility of the prebuilt jobs."
"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."
"Error Handling is one of the best standout features of ActiveBatch."
"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."
"Since we are no longer waiting for an operator to see that a job is finished, we have changed our daily cycle from running in eight hours down to about five. We had a third shift-operator retire and that position was never refilled."
"Using this tool, if there are any huge failures, we immediately get an email notification, and the proper team will be informed, at which time they can act accordingly."
"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."
"There are hundreds of pre-built steps."
"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."
"This solution has made my clients' workplaces a lot less labor-intensive."
"AutoSys Workload Automation is a stable solution."
"We need to have things run in a very sequential order, so it is very useful that we can schedule the work flows."
"We run millions of jobs through it every day using it for financial transactions, banking, credit cards, PeopleSoft, payroll, etc."
"It has helped to simplify cross-dependency between MVS and Open systems jobs."
"The initial setup is easy."
"It allows you to automate tasks, and reduce headcount, prevent errors, self-heal."
"ActiveBatch is a little complex."
"There is this back and forth, where ActiveBatch says, "Your Oracle people should be dealing with this," and Oracle people say, "No, we don't know anything about ActiveBatch." Then, it all falls back on me as to what happens. Nobody is taking responsibility. This is the biggest failing for ActiveBatch."
"Some improvements can be made to the user interface."
"The product should be improved by providing a customization option."
"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."
"I have faced struggles to understand, set up the tool, and implement it in my early days as a new user."
"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."
"There are some issues with this version and finding the jobs that it ran. If you're looking at 1,000 different jobs, it shows based on the execution time, not necessarily the run time. So, if there was a constraint waiting, you may be looking for it in the wrong time frame. Plus, with thousands of jobs showing up and the way it pages output jobs, sometimes you end up with multiple pages on the screen, then you have to go through to find the specific job you're looking for. On the opposite side, you can limit the daily activity screen to show only jobs that failed or jobs currently running, which will shrink that back down. However, we have operators who are looking at the whole nightly cycle to make sure everything is there and make sure nothing got blocked or was waiting. Sometimes, they have a hard time finding every item within the list."
"This product needs to improve its graphical user interface."
"They could do better supporting it. They have too many of the same type of products, so sometimes it doesn't get as much attention as it should."
"CA installation processes are never anything but complex."
"The GUI/Workstation is weak and needs to be improved. CA is working on this right now."
"Performance improvements in the UI would be appreciated."
"Quick search feature and job analysis could be improved."
"A better graphical user interface, because we have a lot of people using the client utility, and we want to get them away from that."
"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."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while AutoSys Workload Automation 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 AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs, IBM Workload Automation and JSCAPE by Redwood, whereas AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Automic Workload Automation and Dollar Universe Workload Automation. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. AutoSys 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.