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.
"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."
"From a scheduling point of view, it is pretty good."
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"We are able to integrate it into multiple third-party tools like email, backup, tracking systems, SharePoint, Slack alerts, etc."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to trigger workflows, one after another, based on success, without having to worry about overlapping workflows. The ability to integrate our BI, analytics, and our data quality jobs is also valuable"
"The automation feature is a very valuable feature as the associates do not have to worry about performing repetitive tasks (i.e. endpoint security scans on a daily basis) that would take several hours to complete on a daily basis."
"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."
"I found ActiveBatch Workload Automation to be a very good scheduling tool. What I like best about it is that it has very less downtime when managing many complex scheduling workflows, so I'm very impressed with ActiveBatch Workload Automation."
"I find that it provides better agility in regards to job execution features."
"Without this product we would have to manually submit jobs and it would take longer. There would also be a much greater possibility of jobs running wrong and/or not at the right time."
"The most valuable features of AutoSys Workload Automation are the file transfer protocol and file watcher. The solution has a user-friendly user interface. It is very simple to use. You have a scope of all your jobs, jobs are what you call tasks that you will automate in the solution. It lets you monitor everything in these jobs."
"The actual scheduling of our jobs has helped us tremendously. Before it was all done manually, and we've totally automated the whole functionality, so there's no longer a case where somebody didn't run something."
"It scales very well. We can add jobs and remove jobs. We do not have problems maintaining the product across multiple environments and multiple servers."
"This solution enables us to improve our daily processing times. We can do everything faster than before we used this solution."
"It allows you to automate tasks, and reduce headcount, prevent errors, self-heal."
"Easy configuration and integration with SAP."
"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."
"Except for the GUI, everything looks good."
"It does have a little bit of a learning curve because it is fairly complex. You have to learn how it does things. I don't know if it's any worse than any other tool would be, just because of the nature of what it does... the learning curve is the hardest part."
"They have some crucial design flaws within the console that still need to be worked out because it is not working exactly how we hoped to see it, e.g., just some minor things where when you hit the save button, then all of a sudden all your job's library items collapse. Then, in order to continue on with your testing, you have to open those back up. I have taken that to them, and they are like, "Yep. We know about it. We know we have some enhancements that need to be taken care of. We have more developers now." They are working towards taking the minor things that annoy us, resolving them, and getting them fixed."
"The thing I've noticed the most is the Help function. It's very difficult, at times, to find examples of how to do something. The Help function will explain what the tool does, but we're not a Windows shop at the data warehouse. Our data warehouse jobs actually run on Linux servers. Finding things for Linux-based solutions is not as easy as it is for Windows-based solutions. I would like to see more examples, and more non-Windows examples as well, in the Help."
"Setting up the software was hard."
"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."
"They could provide an easier installation guide or technical support to the organizations during the installation process."
"Because this product only computes processing days, it is hard when things need to be scheduled according to non-processing days."
"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."
"I am looking forward to more of their dashboard features. I think it would be very valuable for us to have dashboard features that could be delivered to our customers in the form of a URL, and they could refresh that URL whenever they wanted to get up to date performance metrics out of our systems."
"In terms of what should be in the next release, I want integration and AI and so on. I'd like easy reporting where you can compare information, for example, "that job normally takes three minutes and last time it took six minutes or 10 minutes." Then you can get the information to the engineer of which job is taking more time than normal - understanding strange behavior compared to the baseline."
"Pricing model for distributed should have an Enterprise option."
"It would be helpful to be able to monitor and manage workload windows so we could minimize downstream applications. This would allow us easier access to the applications."
"We have to escalate through channels to get to somebody who knows what's going on. It takes time that we do not necessarily have."
"The cross-platform arena, where you can run work on multiple platforms, needs improvement."
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, VisualCron and IBM Workload Automation, whereas AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Stonebranch 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.