We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Fortra's JAMS based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Automic Workload Automation is highly appreciated for its strong performance, flexibility, and straightforward setup process. Fortra's JAMS receives accolades for its exceptional job tracking abilities and efficient automation functionalities.
For Automic Workload Automation, suggested enhancements include the adoption of industry standards and seamless automation processes, better language support, a more intuitive interface, enhanced web-based functionalities, and improved file transfer management. Fortra's JAMS could benefit from improvements in terms of user-friendliness, search functionality, available training resources, handling of exceptions, reporting and dashboard capabilities, source control features, documentation quality, access permissions management, resolution of connectivity issues, and notification system.
Service and Support: Automic Workload Automation's customer service has been met with varying feedback, with some expressing concerns regarding response times and challenges in contacting the support team. Fortra's JAMS customer service is commended for its responsiveness, expertise, and assistance.
Ease of Deployment: Users have found that the setup process for Automic Workload Automation can take anywhere from one to five days depending on the implementation and project size. Fortra's JAMS is known for its straightforward and easy setup, with users finding it quick and simple.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a high setup cost compared to Fortra's JAMS. Users view JAMS as fair, affordable, and a worthwhile investment.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation does not offer concrete ROI figures, however, the absence of license renewal implies it is perceived as an added cost. Fortra's JAMS has demonstrated substantial ROI by saving time, enhancing productivity, and proving to be cost-effective.
Comparison Results: Fortra's JAMS is highly recommended over Automic Workload Automation. JAMS is praised for its simple setup, capability to handle job dependencies, and comprehensive monitoring and control features. Users find JAMS easy to use, with centralized management and helpful customer support. JAMS stands out with its intuitive interface, superior job dependency tracking, and more affordable pricing options.
"The ability to be able to automate more of our business processes."
"The most valuable features are its robustness, it's highly scalable, and it's easy to implement."
"It is reliable. We have never had any unplanned crashes."
"It is the automation. Saving time and money is the key. We automate everything."
"They just talked about adding support for hundreds of thousands of agents, and I know it goes up to about a thousand clients per engine, so you can do a lot with that. It's a very scalable solution."
"The modulation of some of the things, like how the things are connected and disconnected. You have different login objects that you can quickly put to other different objects and other objects that you create, which makes transporting things very easy from one environment to the next."
"The company can expand with this product. Every time I bring in new ideas for solutions, it is with this product."
"It enables us to build automation which is flexible in a controlled environment."
"The code-driven automation for more complex scheduling requirements frees up time because it's really easy to use... It's almost like a stand-alone software that we can't live without."
"It has definitely drastically improved our capabilities to scale our automation. Before JAMS, there were a lot of manual processes. We had a couple of operators who spent all day doing that. A lot of the time with human intervention and human processes, it is as good as the person who may be following a procedure and human error is a big problem."
"I like how you can add new execution methods on the fly. It isn't overly complex to add Python script support to an execution method in the JAMS system. The scheduling is excellent. You can schedule a maintenance window and take that resource unit out of everything. It halts all of the jobs."
"The most valuable feature is the easily accessible data in the database because we run a lot of SQL scripting against the database."
"It's a full-featured job scheduling tool. The part that I liked the best was the support team. This tool was new, and we were all learning it and setting up the different jobs that were complex in nature. Their support team was very responsive in helping us out through the setup and resolving the issues. They have been incredibly awesome."
"JAMS is easier to use and cheaper than our previous solution. The installation is more straightforward, and JAMS has a graphical user interface, so it's more accessible."
"The planning capabilities are most valuable."
"I didn't know about JAMS because I don't have a person with any challenges with the purchase administration. The feature or the user interface is user-friendly because of the readable icons or very descriptive icons. Though I'm a beginning user of JAMS, I had no issues using it."
"The SSH agent is missing in version 12.1. Maybe it would be a good addition to see on the web client of the next version of Atomic."
"I would like to see more types of Calendars in the next release of this solution."
"The one big issue that we have is around passwords and not being able to update passwords through a different tool. This is not available yet."
"Today, we use a rich client for this product. In the future, or for the next release, they will be using a web interface. This web interface is not as scalable as the rich client for us. The web client is not 100 percent programmed as we need it."
"The versioning and support for the lifecycle of Automic's developed solution is what we were missing. However, this is coming in version 12.2, so I am looking forward to seeing how it works."
"I don't know if they have it now, but a mobile version would be good so instead of logging in on my laptop to see something, I could just go in through an app and see if a certain job is running or not. That would be pretty slick."
"There were many bugs in the last version. For example, we could only use capital letters for searching for agent names. Also, we had a problem with ONE Automation where we couldn't use the PGA and SGA in Oracle Databases for resolving RAM because the last version didn't have this capability."
"During installation, some database elective issues popped up. These took some time to fix, but after some back and forth communication, these issues were resolved."
"It is important to receive notifications if a charged job fails and SQL is halted. JAMS does not provide halted notifications by default, which is a critical feature that needs to be added."
"With no programming experience, I find JAMS code-driven automation challenging due to the required PowerShell scripting."
"There could be a better simulation for banning the termination. You have to simulate every one of the processes in order to have an idea for better planning. This kind of simulation is broken and needs improvement."
"The ACL or access permission area needs to be improved. When it comes to defining and providing security permissions, it's a bit confusing if you are new to JAMS. JAMS needs to improve the features for security access or permissions."
"Sometimes the UI is not the most responsive I've ever used. But because it does its job, I don't complain."
"The only thing that they could improve on is the fact that they don't have a browser version of JAMS. They've got all the bits and pieces there if you want to build your own web version of it. It does come with a web client, but it's pretty clunky. They could improve on that."
"The UI could be better. There were some things that were not quite intuitive, such as the search tool. When we tried to search for jobs, we had to clear the entire search and then go in and enter the new search query. That's something that wasn't intuitive for a new user."
"The client is horrible. Every time JAMS puts out a survey on what they can improve, I always say, "The client: When you are setting up jobs, it is quite horrible." The response has been, "Well, we are just using the Windows foundation," and I am like, "Why isn't it only your product?" We can get around it now that we know its quirks, but it is not the most user-friendly of tools out there. The UI is completely unintuitive. We had to go and open up a support ticket with JAMS just to get something back. It is not user-friendly at all."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Fortra's JAMS is ranked 5th in Workload Automation with 27 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Fortra's JAMS is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Automic Workload Automation writes "A tool requiring an easy setup phase that provides its users with flexibility and flow chart visibility ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortra's JAMS writes "We can scale up our organization's scheduling and automation without having to add staff to the department". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and AppWorx Workload Automation, whereas Fortra's JAMS is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs, Tidal by Redwood and VisualCron. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Fortra's JAMS 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.
