We performed a comparison between AutoSys Workload Automation and IBM Workload Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AutoSys Workload Automation is highly recommended for its scalability, ease of use, speed, and availability. Users appreciate its excellent job arrangement, task triggering, real-time batch processing view, software process integration, and user-friendly interface. The file transfer protocol and file watcher features are also praised. IBM Workload Automation is known for its ability to incorporate user-requested features, trigger jobs in multiple nodes, and conveniently track batch applications.
AutoSys Workload Automation users have expressed a need for integration with cloud services, simplified reporting and comparison of job performance, customizable reporting features and alerts, smoother migrations, enhanced handling of file transfer jobs, and the ability to monitor and manage workload windows. IBM Workload Automation users have encountered performance problems, navigation difficulties, challenges with daily schedule refreshes, complex simulation, stability and reporting visibility enhancements, and alignment with new technologies.
Service and Support: Users have positive feedback about the customer service of AutoSys Workload Automation, describing it as excellent, beneficial, and quick to respond. IBM Workload Automation also offers exceptional technical support, which customers depend on for problems that are out of their control. Nonetheless, there may be difficulties in pinpointing the origin of specific issues.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for AutoSys Workload Automation is considered to be simple, straightforward, and quick, while the setup for IBM Workload Automation can be difficult for those who are unfamiliar with IBM tools.
Pricing: The setup cost for AutoSys Workload Automation involves a yearly subscription, an annual license, and a one-time license for the server setup. The pricing for IBM Workload Automation is dependent on the customer's contract and can fluctuate depending on the number of agents installed.
ROI: The effectiveness of AutoSys Workload Automation in terms of ROI is influenced by factors such as the size of the organization, the complexity of the workload, and the efficiency of its implementation. IBM Workload Automation focuses on enhancing efficiency, minimizing expenses, and boosting productivity.
Comparison Results: AutoSys Workload Automation is the preferred choice compared to IBM Workload Automation. Users appreciate AutoSys for its easy setup process, scalability, ease of use, speed, and availability. It offers a user-friendly interface, file transfer protocol, and file watcher features.
"The aggregator reporting utility which tells us our throughput in lag and latency."
"We run millions of jobs through it every day using it for financial transactions, banking, credit cards, PeopleSoft, payroll, etc."
"It works constantly and is pretty seamless. You do not have to open up many support tickets."
"It has helped to simplify cross-dependency between MVS and Open systems jobs."
"The capabilities of the product to schedule on multiple platforms, multiple operating systems."
"It gives a real-time view of all the batch processing that we have. Monitoring-wise, it is really good."
"The most valuable aspects of AutoSys Workload Automation are its performance, scalability, and ease of getting started for new users."
"The ability to create calendars, calendering for batch jobs to run on a scheduled frequency."
"The DWC, when configured correctly, is a great GUI tool to provide Self-Service Scheduling capabilities to the user community."
"The most important feature is the creation of folders. It's a really great feature because you can organize the process with naming conventions."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Technical support from IBM is very good."
"I have supported this product in literally 100s of different environments and its unmatched in its ability to scale to any size."
"The whole product is valuable because it is a tool for batch automation."
"The project we worked on involved the running of nearly 24,000 job instances in a single day, so I would say that the solution is stable."
"Provides a robust, full spectrum enterprise-wide WLA platform."
"There is a slow response time by tech support. Unless, you say it's severity level one. That will give you a two hour timing window for them to call you. It doesn't really happen exactly in two hours, but they try."
"The lack of documentation, that is an issue. When we do need to bring it down for maintenance, it is always a scary moment for us because we have never had it crash."
"The graphical interface can be improved."
"There is a difference between a web interface and the thick client interface. We particularly like a thick client interface, and it has gone away."
"Some of the reports are either a bit hard to understand or don’t give you what you might expect to see."
"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."
"CA installation processes are never anything but complex."
"Needs better documentation with fully explained examples for some of the job types."
"It should support other schedulers that aren't IBM products."
"There should be more custom documentation, specifically around Java APIs. There should also be more training. In terms of features, we are currently using only 50% of its features. We don't use all features that are available, but there is always room for improvement in all of the tools."
"Slow down on the releases a bit. I fully understand that IWA functionality is increasing at an amazing rate, but trying to keep up with the upgrades is rough."
"The schedule refreshes daily and that's a challenge for us."
"It is missing some features and can improve in areas where the competition is somewhat better like linking job dependencies."
"The performance of the previous versions could be better."
"This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly."
"The configuration of IBM Workload Automation has some challenges. We have a difficult time customizing it, but it is similar to other solutions."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while IBM Workload Automation is ranked 13th in Workload Automation with 28 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while IBM Workload Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Workload Automation writes "With an easy setup phase in place, agent-based installation can be done in minutes". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Stonebranch, Automic Workload Automation and CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas IBM Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, HCL Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Tidal by Redwood and BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager. See our AutoSys Workload Automation vs. IBM 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.