We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Fortra's JAMS 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 performance, flexibility, and straightforward setup process. Fortra's JAMS receives accolades for its exceptional job tracking abilities and efficient automation functionalities.
For Automic Workload Automation, suggested enhancements include the adoption of industry standards and seamless automation processes, better language support, a more intuitive interface, enhanced web-based functionalities, and improved file transfer management. Fortra's JAMS could benefit from improvements in terms of user-friendliness, search functionality, available training resources, handling of exceptions, reporting and dashboard capabilities, source control features, documentation quality, access permissions management, resolution of connectivity issues, and notification system.
Service and Support: Automic Workload Automation's customer service has been met with varying feedback, with some expressing concerns regarding response times and challenges in contacting the support team. Fortra's JAMS customer service is commended for its responsiveness, expertise, and assistance.
Ease of Deployment: Users have found that the setup process for Automic Workload Automation can take anywhere from one to five days depending on the implementation and project size. Fortra's JAMS is known for its straightforward and easy setup, with users finding it quick and simple.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a high setup cost compared to Fortra's JAMS. Users view JAMS as fair, affordable, and a worthwhile investment.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation does not offer concrete ROI figures, however, the absence of license renewal implies it is perceived as an added cost. Fortra's JAMS has demonstrated substantial ROI by saving time, enhancing productivity, and proving to be cost-effective.
Comparison Results: Fortra's JAMS is highly recommended over Automic Workload Automation. JAMS is praised for its simple setup, capability to handle job dependencies, and comprehensive monitoring and control features. Users find JAMS easy to use, with centralized management and helpful customer support. JAMS stands out with its intuitive interface, superior job dependency tracking, and more affordable pricing options.
"It enables us to build automation which is flexible in a controlled environment."
"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."
"It will improve how we function. It is just meeting a functional need in a maybe more agile way; it is faster."
"I like the script engine of CA, where you can build everything you want."
"The company can expand with this product. Every time I bring in new ideas for solutions, it is with this product."
"The most valuable features are its robustness, it's highly scalable, and it's easy to implement."
"The night processing helps to have data just-in-time for the morning."
"I like that Automic Workload Automation has many features compared to other products. There are a lot of good features, and architecture-wise there is a valuable client concept. The architecture and the multi-tenancy is a multi-client concept. That is also useful."
"JAMS has improved my organization by taking a myriad of manual processes and allowing us to automate them. It enables our folks to focus more on tasks that require their human intelligence and their creativity and less on just mundane tasks. It increases efficiency, accuracy, and consistency."
"JAMS is easier to use and cheaper than our previous solution. The installation is more straightforward, and JAMS has a graphical user interface, so it's more accessible."
"The most valuable feature is the easily accessible data in the database because we run a lot of SQL scripting against the database."
"The ability to sequence jobs is excellent; it means we don't have to schedule them individually, and if one fails, it doesn't unwind the entire workflow."
"One of the things I like the most, as a SQL DBA, is the fact that we can manipulate tables in the background. Also, the fact that you can have your own views and work with the product the way it fits best is a very helpful feature."
"The fact that we no longer need to use Excel spreadsheets is huge. Before JAMS, every group was keeping track of their own batch jobs. Nobody really knew what the other jobs were. So, if jobs failed, other groups wouldn't necessarily know. With JAMS, everything is done through a single scheduler. You can choose who to notify."
"We looked at other companies, like VisualCron, that were cheaper, but one of the main sticking points was the fact that they wouldn't have provided a central location for us to monitor across all servers. That was one of the biggest selling points of JAMS."
"I find the historical tracking feature of JAMS invaluable for reviewing past events."
"We have some problems with updates where some functions are changed, so you have to check your whole system to see if everything is still running. The update process for us is around two months of testing and one day of updates."
"There are certain jobs that are triggered one after another. It would be helpful to have a more user-friendly way of seeing how these jobs are connecting from one server to another."
"They need to handle cross datacenter failover. They have a really good High Availability solution that works well within a single sysplex, but in our environment, since we have two main datacenter locations, we have two separate sysplex."
"Choosing Automic Workload Automation essentially locks us into their ecosystem, making it nearly impossible to switch to a different product."
"There has to be a better way to visualize things in the application without having so many windows open."
"The new user interface needs improvement. The previous version was good and stable. Now, we have to check the new one before using a web browser. It is not stable."
"I would not recommend using Automic's technical support for complex problems."
"Documentation is not great. It was previously much better."
"The product does not allow the users to cut and paste the job names from the screen."
"Sometimes the UI is not the most responsive I've ever used. But because it does its job, I don't complain."
"The only thing that they could improve on is the fact that they don't have a browser version of JAMS. They've got all the bits and pieces there if you want to build your own web version of it. It does come with a web client, but it's pretty clunky. They could improve on that."
"The ACL or access permission area needs to be improved. When it comes to defining and providing security permissions, it's a bit confusing if you are new to JAMS. JAMS needs to improve the features for security access or permissions."
"We have had a lot of people working from home who can't always connect to the JAMS server. We use VPN, as most companies do, and we have it set up so that everybody can access the JAMS server. But many times, our people cannot access it... JAMS could do a better job of telling you what the problem is when you try to log in to the server."
"JAMS lacks source control features. Our previous solution had job control language, but JAMS doesn't. When migrating between versions, JAMS doesn't migrate all the data, like job change history, etc. Also, the scheduler doesn't have a way to make jobs invisible, so you can temporarily turn a job off if you decide not to run it today."
"The biggest area with room for improvement is the area that my organization benefits the most from using JAMS, and that is in custom execution methods. I happen to have a very good C# developer. Ever since we got JAMS, he has spent a lot of time talking to JAMS developers, researching the JAMS libraries, and creating custom execution methods. He's gotten very good at it. He is now able to create them and maintain them very easily, but that knowledge was hard-won knowledge. It was difficult to come by, and if I should ever lose this developer, then I would be hard-pressed to find anyone who could create JAMS custom execution methods quite as well as he can since there really isn't all that much help, such as documentation or information, available on how to create custom execution methods."
"Fortra is getting much better with documentation and examples, but there is still room for improvement."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Fortra's JAMS is ranked 5th in Workload Automation with 27 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Fortra's JAMS is rated 9.0. 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 Fortra's JAMS writes "We can scale up our organization's scheduling and automation without having to add staff to the department". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and AppWorx Workload Automation, whereas Fortra's JAMS is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs, Tidal by Redwood and VisualCron. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Fortra's JAMS 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.
