We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch Workload Automation and AutoSys Workload Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is known for its versatility and ease of use, as well as its prebuilt jobs and real-time monitoring. It also has a strong alerting mechanism and excels in workload distribution and integration capabilities.AutoSys Workload Automation is highly acclaimed for its scalability and ease of use, as well as its speed and availability. It is particularly valued for job scheduling and orchestrating tasks.
ActiveBatch users would like to see enhancements in licensing, user interface, trigger reliability, monitoring dashboard, documentation, support services, cloud capabilities, and pricing. AutoSys users desire integration with cloud services, better reporting and monitoring capabilities, improved workflow management, and enhanced workload window management.
Service and Support: Users have praised ActiveBatch for its helpful and reliable technical support, which includes workarounds, a clear knowledge base, and APIs. AutoSys receives high praise for its very good, helpful, and responsive support. Users see the support team for both products as sufficient and capable, with a standardized approach and a mature product.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is uncomplicated, although there could be improved documentation for file importing. However, configuring it on varied environments like Windows and Linux can be challenging. AutoSys Workload Automation setup is described as effortless, direct, and fairly rapid, taking around 10 minutes or less with minimal clicks. For more intricate setups, a complete implementation may require a month or two.
Pricing: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has an uncomplicated and quick setup process, with users finding the pricing fair and competitive. AutoSys Workload Automation offers different pricing and licensing choices, with some users perceiving it as costly.
ROI: Users have praised ActiveBatch Workload Automation for its positive financial impact, such as a notable rise in net revenue. AutoSys Workload Automation provides various advantages like heightened productivity, enhanced efficiency, cost savings, improved visibility and control, and decreased downtime.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is the preferred choice when compared to AutoSys Workload Automation. Users appreciate ActiveBatch's simplicity in setup and implementation, its versatility, ease of use, and extensive library of prebuilt job steps. They also value its real-time monitoring and scalability.
"I found ActiveBatch Workload Automation to be a very good scheduling tool. What I like best about it is that it has very less downtime when managing many complex scheduling workflows, so I'm very impressed with ActiveBatch Workload Automation."
"What ActiveBatch allows you to do is develop a more efficient process. It gave me visibility into all my jobs so I could choose which jobs to run in parallel. This is much easier than when I have to try to do it through cron for Windows XP, where you really can't do things in parallel and know what is going on."
"ActiveBatch can automate predictable, repeatable processes very well. There is no real trick to what ActiveBatch does. ActiveBatch does exactly what you would expect a scheduling piece of software to do. It does it in a timely manner and does it with very little outside interference and fanfare. It runs when it is supposed to, and I don't have to jump through a bunch of hoops to double check it."
"The software offers real-time monitoring and reporting features that let IT teams keep tabs on the progress of their batch operations and workflows."
"It can connect to a number of third-party/legacy systems."
"One of the most valuable features is the job templates. If we need to create an FTP job, we just drag over the FTP template and fill out the requirements using the variables that ActiveBatch uses. And that makes it reusable. We can create a job once but use it for many different clients."
"We leverage the solution's native integrations regularly. We have to get files from a remote server outside the organization, and even send things outside the organization. We use a lot of its file manipulation and SFTP functionality for contacting remote servers."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to trigger workflows, one after another, based on success, without having to worry about overlapping workflows. The ability to integrate our BI, analytics, and our data quality jobs is also valuable"
"The most valuable feature of AutoSys Workload Automation is batch processing."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the functions are easy to use."
"Running anything in crontab, you need to put a lot of logic into it to make it work. With this product, you don't have to worry about it. You have the schedule object where you put all the dates or holidays in it, and it does it for you."
"Automic Automation Engine provides us the ability to map logic using a scripting language."
"It is very valuable for us when we are trying to arrange or orchestrate jobs into a system. It is helpful for triggering jobs for a scheduled task."
"Easy configuration and integration with SAP."
"This solution enables us to improve our daily processing times. We can do everything faster than before we used this solution."
"Without this product we would have to manually submit jobs and it would take longer. There would also be a much greater possibility of jobs running wrong and/or not at the right time."
"I have faced struggles to understand, set up the tool, and implement it in my early days as a new user."
"Any product is going to have some room for improvement, no matter what. I see the company has already ventured into AWS and they're constantly trying to improve the managed file transfer which they have recently improvised. I think they bought a software called JSCAPE and they're trying to improve it, which is good. I am not sure if JSCAPE would be part of the base product but currently, you have to buy a separate license for it, which doesn't make sense. If it was Microsoft, ServiceNow, or integrating with other software vendors, I would understand but JSCAPE is now in-house and I'm not sure if they can justify having a separate license for JSCAPE. I would probably expect them to be packaging JSCAPE into the base product. They did switch over from a perpetual license model to a subscription model, which hurt the company a little bit. Nobody is offering the perpetual model anymore. As long as the transition is fair for both the companies, I think it should be fine and not burn us out."
"Some of the advanced features in the user interface are a bit confusing even after referring to the documents."
"One thing I've noticed is that navigation can be difficult unless you are familiar with the structure that we have in place. If someone else had to look at our ActiveBatch console and find a job, they might not know where to find it."
"Setting up the software was hard."
"There are some issues with this version and finding the jobs that it ran. If you're looking at 1,000 different jobs, it shows based on the execution time, not necessarily the run time. So, if there was a constraint waiting, you may be looking for it in the wrong time frame. Plus, with thousands of jobs showing up and the way it pages output jobs, sometimes you end up with multiple pages on the screen, then you have to go through to find the specific job you're looking for. On the opposite side, you can limit the daily activity screen to show only jobs that failed or jobs currently running, which will shrink that back down. However, we have operators who are looking at the whole nightly cycle to make sure everything is there and make sure nothing got blocked or was waiting. Sometimes, they have a hard time finding every item within the list."
"Some improvements can be made to the user interface."
"The help center and documentation are not that helpful."
"This product needs to improve its graphical user interface."
"We have to escalate through channels to get to somebody who knows what's going on. It takes time that we do not necessarily have."
"The WCC could be improved."
"We see improvement possibilities in the processing provision of predefined evaluations or individual objects, or in the Self Service portal, which can be used by any user to monitor objects or start objects."
"AutoSys Workload Automation could improve the integration."
"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."
"More benefits with the agent upgrades, and that's about it. Other than that we have no complaints with it. It's been awesome."
"Reduce the number of operational files. This would make the job of a system programmer supporting ESP easier."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs, IBM Workload Automation and VisualCron, whereas AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Automic Workload Automation and Dollar Universe Workload Automation. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. AutoSys 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.