We performed a comparison between AutoSys Workload Automation and Mule Anypoint Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Workload Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has helped to simplify cross-dependency between MVS and Open systems jobs."
"Integration with multiple services and applications across the enterprise."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the functions are easy to use."
"It has allowed us to automate many of the functions of our operations staff. For instance, we had production control staff spending two hours a day entering date parms into our daily business processes. And now, CA Workload Automation does it for us."
"The CA workload agent has gotten much better. For our organization it's important for us to communicate in a secure fashion between the host and the other platforms, and we are able to do that with our CA product"
"It is stable, it works, and it does what it is supposed to."
"The most valuable aspects of AutoSys Workload Automation are its performance, scalability, and ease of getting started for new users."
"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."
"The integration potential is excellent."
"The product’s ability to seamlessly translate protocols is great."
"Overall, it is a pretty good product. It is also very scalable."
"This is the easiest and best tool available."
"The solution's market place for different kinds of integration platforms is the most valuable feature."
"The API toolkit is the solution's most valuable aspect at this time, for our organization."
"The tool is very capable and offers a high performance. The tool supports batch processing and ETL processing."
"It can scale."
"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."
"I would like to see the Service Orchestrator, a B2B product, and maybe a process audit."
"Documentation and cross-application externals could be improved."
"I am not sure whether it is our limitation or a tool limitation because we haven't yet explored it, but whenever we look for different types of reporting, we have some limitations in getting those. It could be because of the way we have set it up internally in our enterprise, but it would be helpful if we can customize the reporting features and some of the alerts that can go out. When we connect enterprise systems, each one looks for a different use case, and if we can get different types of reporting, it will be helpful."
"Performance improvements in the UI would be appreciated."
"To make it a lot more user-friendly, in order to make it so other people can use it without having to do much training with it; the more user-friendly it is, the easier it is to work with."
"SQL server clustering is not supported."
"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."
"Code quality, Code Security, SaaS, and DaaS security, can all be improved."
"There is not much information on the internet...The transforming message is an area in the solution that needs to be improved."
"What I hear from my customers is that it's very expensive compared to the cost of other integration suites. The cost keeps increasing. MuleSoft should come up with customization factors by using a different way of getting the cost-related stuff to attract customers. That is, they should come up with some cost optimizations."
"Although the solution's proxy design and process are good, it faces connecting issues because it lacks data integration."
"Mule Anypoint Platform is complex for beginners. Users without programming skills will find it complex. It should also improve its pricing."
"We would like an entire DevOps in place in this particular solution."
"The solution's licensing methodologies could be improved."
"Mule Anypoint Platform could improve by having better integration with MDM. There are challenges when doing the interaction at this time."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while Mule Anypoint Platform is ranked 8th in Workload Automation with 41 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while Mule Anypoint Platform 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 Mule Anypoint Platform writes "Robust, reliable, and stable, ensuring high availability for critical integrations". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Automic Workload Automation and Stonebranch, whereas Mule Anypoint Platform is most compared with MuleSoft Composer, Microsoft Azure Logic Apps, SAP Process Orchestration, Oracle Integration Cloud Service and SAP Cloud Platform. See our AutoSys Workload Automation vs. Mule Anypoint Platform 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.
