We performed a comparison between HCL Workload Automation and Stonebranch based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC, Tidal Software by Redwood, Redwood Software and others in Workload Automation."Easy to set up, it doesn't require a lot."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"The tasks are incredibly capable, and as long as you name them with a nice, uniform naming convention, they are very useful. You can create some interesting workflows through various machines, or you can just have it kick off single tasks. All in all, I really like the Universal Task. You can do some mutually exclusive stuff, such as an "A not B" kind of thing. It has a lot of capabilities behind the scenes."
"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 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."
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"I can name the aliases on the agent, so if we need a passive environment for an agent, that's one of the nice features. If our primary goes down, I can bring up the passive one and I don't have to change anything in the scheduling world. It will start running from that new server."
"The interface needs some improvements."
"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."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"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."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"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."
"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."
"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."
Earn 20 points
HCL Workload Automation is ranked 25th in Workload Automation while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. HCL Workload Automation is rated 8.0, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of HCL Workload Automation writes "Easy to set up, good support, and helps to decrease project costs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". HCL Workload Automation is most compared with IBM Workload Automation, Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation and Automic Workload Automation, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, Redwood RunMyJobs and ESP Workload Automation Intelligence.
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.