We performed a comparison between Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition 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: Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition stands out for its robust job definition capabilities, intuitive interface, live event monitoring, and seamless integration with different systems. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is praised for its exceptional performance, visually appealing graphical representation, and efficient task monitoring.
Redwood has the potential for improvement in reporting capabilities, monitoring and alert services, user interface, outage identification, and other aspects. Stonebranch has room for enhancement in cloud availability, analytics, task monitoring, and collaboration with the vendor.
Service and Support: The customer service for Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition has received generally positive feedback, although there is some room for improvement. Customers express satisfaction with the support they have received. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center's customer service is highly praised, particularly for its excellent technical support and knowledgeable team. Users rate their support as nine out of ten.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition was difficult and took a lot of time, whereas Stonebranch Universal Automation Center had a relatively easy setup. Redwood Software necessitated training multiple teams and managing a decentralized structure, whereas Stonebranch had a more user-friendly graphical user interface (GUI) for setup.
Pricing: Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition has a higher initial cost, however, users find it worth the investment, and the license renewal process is straightforward. In contrast, Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is more affordable compared to its competitors and necessitates an annual license fee.
ROI: Users of Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition have experienced significant time savings and improved job scheduling, resulting in ROI. One user gave it a perfect rating. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center has led to cost savings.
Comparison Results: Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition is the preferred choice over Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. Redwood Software offers a comprehensive solution with strong job definition and building capabilities, a user-friendly interface, real-time event monitoring, and cloud automation. It also includes features such as load balancing, memory management, and mobile notifications.
"Redwood manages all complex job workflow processes."
"This program works with every browser."
"Redwood is more flexible and we can schedule the tasks based on different time zones."
"In Redwood Automation, we can easily fetch the daily reports from the system as per the client's requirement and track the status of every job which is running, aborted, or canceled."
"It can centralize and support on-premises, hybrid, and cloud environments seamlessly."
"Redwood is of value to our organization due to of its ease of use and the ability to automate and orchestrate any platform that we utilize today."
"There are various ways in which you can construct jobs depending on your business needs and requirements."
"We can create and test micro-workflows to find defects sooner."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"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."
"I can name the aliases on the agent, so if we need a passive environment for an agent, that's one of the nice features. If our primary goes down, I can bring up the passive one and I don't have to change anything in the scheduling world. It will start running from that new server."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"When it comes to agent technology and compatibility with other vendors, from a platform perspective it was the one vendor that fit all the platforms that we have, from your old platforms - mainframe, NSK, IBM i - to the new ones, going into cloud and container"
"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."
"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."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
"The reports are downloaded in .CAR file format, which makes it difficult to convert to an Excel file."
"Having a graphical user interface for the dashboard would be great."
"They should be made more cost-effective in comparison to similar software services."
"The job log has a size limit."
"The solution should have more focus on security standards."
"Due to the abundance of competing automation technologies available on the market, connectivity with any cloud platform can be improved."
"We'd like to see an integration with ServiceNow to raise the tickets/incidents in ServiceNow."
"It has limited reporting features; some basic reporting features are missing."
"There is a component called the OMS, which is the message broker. We rely on infrastructure, resiliency, and availability for that piece. If that could change to be highly available just as a software component, so that we don't have to provide the high-available storage, etc. for it, that would be a plus. It would just be cheaper to run."
"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."
"The Universal Controller is decent for the money it costs... It needs some work to have full features, compared to other products that are out there, specifically IBM's Workload Scheduler."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"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."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
Redwood RunMyJobs is ranked 3rd in Workload Automation with 30 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. Redwood RunMyJobs is rated 9.6, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Redwood RunMyJobs writes "Simple to use, increases CPU speed, and reduces the cost of machine time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". Redwood RunMyJobs is most compared with Control-M, Tidal by Redwood, AutoSys Workload Automation, Automic Workload Automation and Automic Automation Intelligence, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, IBM Workload Automation and VisualCron. See our Redwood RunMyJobs 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.