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.
"We have two nodes that are highly available. You can add new nodes if you need that. You can take a node, a total node, down and still be operating fine. It has a lot of scaling to it."
"The scalability is very good. We can scale it however we want."
"It has its own object-oriented scripting language and you can reload your object in many different places."
"Automic is 99 percent stable. We've never had a problem with stability."
"The main things that we use it for are job control and batch. For these, it does very well."
"The monitoring and troubleshooting features are rich and with the dashboards and other features, automation work is made easier."
"It's easy to use. When you schedule jobs, if you can speak English you can schedule them easily and correctly. Also, there's a lot of flexibility because the product allows you to do many tasks, in multiple ways, so you can choose the way that works best for your environment."
"The most valuable feature is it always runs things automatically that you normally have to do manually, like download files."
"We lean a lot on the multi-tenancy that they offer within the product, the ability to get other people to self-manage their estate, versus having a central team do all the scheduling."
"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 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 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 like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"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."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"They need to refine the system basics instead of adding more features."
"I would also like to see a little bit more connectivity, more, "Play nice with other toys." For instance, we have IServ as our primary tool for our service request tickets. In order for it to play nice with Automic, we had to actually create a file and put it somewhere, where Automic can see it. I would like to see more connectivity with other tools, or more compatibility with other tools."
"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."
"There are too many bugs to be solved after a version upgrade. We are working on the limits of an architecture with 16,000 platforms. It is impossible to test everything out in the software lab of CA."
"There are some scripting elements that could be added."
"The workflows should be clearer and more expressive."
"The frustration that we have probably had in the past is where CA tools run for a period of time, then they get deprecated, and you have to build a new one."
"Most of our issues are related to the system, not the job scheduling, such as, bugs and unexpected downtime of the application or database."
"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."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"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."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"I have a request regarding our agent on the mainframe. It may time out when communicating to the Universal Controller, when the mainframe is extremely busy. That can cause a task which is running at that time to not see the results of the job that ran on the mainframe. It happens sporadically during times of really busy CPU usage. We're expecting that enhancement from them in the fourth quarter."
"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 be hard to manage the task monitor."
"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."
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.
