We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch 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: ActiveBatch Workload Automation provides a wide range of valuable features such as versatility, ease of use, prebuilt jobs, real-time scheduling and monitoring, intelligent automation, scalability, REST API adapters, and an exceptional user interface. IBM Workload Automation prioritizes client voting for additional features, triggering jobs in multiple nodes, and batch application tracking.
ActiveBatch Workload Automation has areas that could be improved, such as licensing, user interface, trigger reliability, monitoring dashboard, documentation, support services, and integration capabilities. IBM Workload Automation has faced performance problems in past versions, difficulties with navigation, and limited reporting visibility.
Service and Support: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has been praised for its excellent customer service, particularly its reliable technical support. However, there are concerns about the service model and the availability of the hotline. IBM Workload Automation is highly respected for its support, with customers recommending its lab advocacy program for detailed code support.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is straightforward and uncomplicated, without any significant challenges. However, there is a minor requirement for additional documentation during the file import. The initial setup for IBM Workload Automation can be difficult for individuals who are not familiar with IBM tools, however, with help, it becomes relatively easy.
Pricing: ActiveBatch Workload Automation offers a versatile licensing structure that eliminates the need for agents on all servers, whereas IBM Workload Automation's cost is based on the customer's agreement.
ROI: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has received positive feedback for its ability to generate positive results and financial benefits. Users have reported a significant increase in net revenue. There is a lack of specific user reviews and ROI data for IBM Workload Automation. However, it is known for its focus on optimizing workload management processes and enhancing efficiency.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly recommended over IBM Workload Automation. Users appreciate ActiveBatch's straightforward setup process, adaptability, ease of use, ready-made jobs, intuitive interface, real-time monitoring, scalability, and an extensive collection of prebuilt job steps.
"The user interface is really incredible."
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"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."
"The software offers real-time monitoring and reporting features that let IT teams keep tabs on the progress of their batch operations and workflows."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the versatility of the prebuilt jobs."
"ActiveBatch has reduced work by providing automated workflows across several different applications."
"For developers, it is easy to orchestrate the workflows and the integration has been very easy."
"Managing the workload and monitoring the tasks were very difficult with manual interventions. Now, by using ActiveBatch, the process is automated and it runs tasks on a scheduled basis."
"The DWC, when configured correctly, is a great GUI tool to provide Self-Service Scheduling capabilities to the user community."
"The technical support is great, the product is easy-to-use, and it is stable."
"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."
"Jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The most important feature is the creation of folders. It's a really great feature because you can organize the process with naming conventions."
"Jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes."
"I can't get the cleaning up of logs to work consistently. Right now, we are not setup correctly, and maybe it is something that I have not effectively communicated to them."
"The interface is not that user-friendly and is a little tough to navigate."
"Between version 10 and version 12 there was a change. In version 10, they had each object in its own folder. But on the back end, they saw it at the root level. So when we moved over to version 12, everything was in the same area mixed together. It was incredibly difficult and we actually had to create our own folders and move those objects—like schedules, jobs, user accounts—and manually put those into folders, whereas the previous version already had it."
"It could be easier to provide dashboards on how many jobs are running at the same time; more monitoring."
"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."
"The reporting needs improvement. There is a real need for the ability to generate audit reports on the fly. It needs to be a lot easier than what I can do right now. This is a major item for me."
"The user interface can be improved so that it is more appealing and accessible to new users."
"A cloud option is not provided as a free feature, making it a costly solution for smaller organizations."
"This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly."
"Scalability-wise, it can be a little bit challenging."
"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."
"It is missing some features and can improve in areas where the competition is somewhat better like linking job dependencies."
"It would be helpful to have a mobile app that could be used to follow the job schedule."
"It should support other schedulers that aren't IBM products."
"The schedule refreshes daily and that's a challenge for us."
"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."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while IBM Workload Automation is ranked 14th in Workload Automation with 28 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while IBM Workload Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". 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". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs and JSCAPE by Redwood, whereas IBM Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, HCL Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Redwood RunMyJobs. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood 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.
