We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Tidal Automation 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 valued for its strong performance, ability to handle large workloads, and user-friendly implementation. It provides comprehensive control over various systems and products. Tidal Automation is particularly praised for its efficient job scheduler and advanced real-time monitoring features.
Automic could enhance its out-of-box automation sets, language support, functionality, user interface, web-based edition features, file transfer management, pricing, and SaaS deployment. Tidal could benefit from improvements in its graphical user interface, pricing model, cloud/hybrid solution, QA testing, job migration, reporting, artificial intelligence capabilities, integration, and user-friendliness.
Service and Support: Automic Workload Automation's customer service has received varied feedback, with some customers appreciating prompt responses and useful knowledge articles, while others have encountered challenges in contacting the support team. Tidal Automation's customer service is highly regarded for its responsiveness, expertise, and consistent resolution of issues.
Ease of Deployment: Automic's initial setup duration and complexity can differ, lasting anywhere from one to five days based on the project scale and implementation. Tidal Automation's initial setup is described as simple and effortless, necessitating approximately three weeks along with a few servers and a database.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation and Tidal Automation were compared for their setup cost. Users found Automic Workload Automation to be more cost-effective and user-friendly compared to Tidal Automation. They praised Automic for its efficiency in setting up automation processes without incurring excessive expenses.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation is seen as an added cost without clear ROI figures, while Tidal Automation has demonstrated positive ROI through cost savings, enhanced efficiency, and better risk management. Tidal Automation also excels in seamless integration and fulfilling automation needs.
Comparison Results: Tidal Automation emerges as the preferred choice compared to Automic Workload Automation. The setup process for Tidal Automation is described as straightforward and easy, taking approximately three weeks, whereas Automic's setup can take anywhere from one to five days. Users highly appreciate Tidal Automation's job scheduler and single pane of glass interface, which make workload management and monitoring simple.
"The most important and critical process business in the bank, including COB, closed or business, which has to run on a daily basis, is automated."
"The most valuable feature is it always runs things automatically that you normally have to do manually, like download files."
"Our customers appreciate it mostly because it takes a lot of effort away from them."
"We do not have to use a broad variety of agents to connect to different types of systems."
"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."
"Without automation, it would be nearly impossible to do all the jobs that we are doing."
"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."
"You can create very fine, granular workflows with a lot of possibilities. It gives you the possibility to do things in many ways."
"The best feature of Tidal Workload Automation Software is its ease of integration with other systems, including ERP, CRM, and BI tools."
"From a management standpoint, when using the solution for cross-platform, cross-application workloads, I've never had a problem with the application. It's very interactive, especially with the different security levels that they offer."
"We had a number of different schedulers in this organization and we've been porting everything that was running out of these other, unrelated schedulers into this scheduler. That has afforded us the ability to set up direct dependencies between processes that couldn't talk to one another before. Over the 15 years, we've definitely gained a lot from that. What had been manual controls have become automated controls..."
"Tidal Automation software provides real-time monitoring and alerts, allowing users to track job progress and identify potential issues before they cause delays or errors."
"Especially in the newer versions of Tidal, the segmentation of user permissions enables us to give people operator permissions for their jobs, to rerun jobs, but view-only for other groups' jobs. We're able to keep people from hurting themselves or other groups accidentally. The permissioning is really good."
"With the varied features in the varied adapters provided, we use Tidal Enterprise Scheduler because we want everything to be scheduled in one place. Tidal provides that for us with its tools and varying platforms in our organization. Tidal provides all the connectors to the platforms. This is very useful because we don't want to look for another scheduler for scheduling certain jobs. We don't want to look at those schedules manually between platforms."
"With other tools, you do not have the ability to schedule jobs on their own. You need to create a group and then assign everything to that group. Only then will the job be able to execute. In Tidal, you can schedule a single job and there is no need to create a group. That's what I like the most."
"We have to run about 12,000 jobs every day and the majority of them need to be launched from our ERP, JD Edwards. The native compatibility of the Tidal platform with JD Edwards dovetails with our greatest need. It's directly connected to the heart of our IT system. We couldn't work without it."
"It has a very complicated interface, which could be made to be more user-friendly."
"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."
"From my point of view, the current product needs more stability."
"I would like to see more types of Calendars in the next release of this solution."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly in terms of job creation and scheduling, especially when doing bulk job creation."
"I would like a good AWI in the next release. The AWI is not fully functional at this time."
"The forecast and long-term planning could be made a little better when you work with it in the future."
"They need to handle cross datacenter failover. They have a really good High Availability solution that works well within a single sysplex, but in our environment, since we have two main datacenter locations, we have two separate sysplex."
"The user interface is the place that needs the most work. If and when we find issues with the product, they are usually in that area. If I had to choose, that's where I'd want issues, as opposed to in the engine. But the UI is average. It's a little sluggish at times and there are some bugs in it."
"The UI might have the potential to provide a more polished and user-centric encounter, promoting seamless engagements and simplifying the navigation process for individuals interacting with the software."
"Their software installation and update process could use some improvements. I'm pretty sure they're working on that, but that's definitely an area where it could be streamlined a lot. There's still a lot of manual work that you have to do with the schedule when you deploy masters or do the agents."
"The solution needs more advanced reporting and data visualization capabilities to enable deeper analysis of job performance and trends."
"Tidal's adaptability and user-friendliness could be increased by integrating it with additional programmes and platforms."
"The drill-down into details using the Graphical Views feature is a bit difficult and not that helpful. If you want to go into the details, you have to go to the Job Activity. Graphical Views is not that easy for getting that kind of information."
"When we patch to the next version, there is often a little thing that breaks. It has rarely been a big deal, but I always seem to have to follow up on one tiny issue. It would help if they had some better QA testing of their patches."
"Setting up the initial product was a little hard."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Tidal by Redwood is ranked 2nd in Workload Automation with 37 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Tidal by Redwood 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 Tidal by Redwood writes "Great visibility with a single pane of glass and a low learning curve". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and MOVEit, whereas Tidal by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs and Fortra's JAMS. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Tidal by Redwood 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.
