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.
"People are called back five minutes after I establish a ticket or incident. They are often doing WebEx and web sessions to get to the point."
"The scalability is very good. We can scale it however we want."
"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 most important and critical process business in the bank, including COB, closed or business, which has to run on a daily basis, is automated."
"It will improve how we function. It is just meeting a functional need in a maybe more agile way; it is faster."
"The night processing helps to have data just-in-time for the morning."
"It is scalable. We can grow it out."
"The most valuable features are that a lot systems are supported. You can use this for z/OS, Windows, Unix, SAP, etc."
"While I appreciate the other features, the agent stands out for its ease of installation and configuration for JAMS monitoring."
"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."
"The planning capabilities are most valuable."
"The overall product is fantastic. I love it. It has been a fantastic, solid product. If I have one tiny bit of a problem with it, the support team gets in touch with me right away. I don't know if I've had another service that has been as fantastic as the JAMS support team."
"Fortra's JAMS helped us centralize job management across our platforms and applications. This is critical because we schedule tasks across multiple applications and operating systems, using triggers and start dates to coordinate their execution."
"One of the things I like the most, as a SQL DBA, is the fact that we can manipulate tables in the background. Also, the fact that you can have your own views and work with the product the way it fits best is a very helpful feature."
"I find the historical tracking feature of JAMS invaluable for reviewing past events."
"Our company is based on data. Everything we do is data-driven, so it has been very valuable having one place where we can process all of the data and do batch schedules with chunks of data."
"Its dashboard can be improved. In version 12, they have already moved to a web-based interface from a UI. We are looking into this feature now. We are also looking for available APIs that we can use to interface the engine into our other systems. There should be a subservice facility that we can use to interface with Microsoft Teams and send out authorization on job executions. We have seen a feature like this in other products that we are looking into."
"The hotline can take a long time. They will say, "I will take it and give it to the Level 2 support.""
"My biggest complaint is that there is no list price. We work with Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, etc., and all of them have list pricing. Automic, right up until today, has never had list pricing. This makes things difficult, because we need to plan budgets for the next year and can't."
"Automic Workload Automation could improve the SaaS deployment."
"I would like a good AWI in the next release. The AWI is not fully functional at this time."
"The web-based edition is missing a lot of the most important features available in Automic, we have absence. For example, when I'm scheduling a job, there is normally a flag that you can toggle to activate and deactivate the task, but that doesn't work properly in the web version. It's missing a lot of the calendar and scheduling features."
"Every time we have an upgrade for a new version, we have stability problems, because the versions are not as good as they should be."
"The user interface could be a little more user-friendly, as it is not the best out there."
"JAMS handles exceptions fairly well but there are some areas where it might improve a little bit. It has to do with being able to automatically handle exceptions, out-of-the-box, rather than having to code them."
"I would like a simple web interface that I could give to my team to go in and kill jobs or see why jobs died so that we don't have to drill down deeper into the application and know everything about it. It would be good to have a really clean web engine that would say here are the jobs running. We can then click to see the time running and whether any of them fails and other similar things. I know they have one, but it's not very simplistic."
"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."
"All my machines at work are Macs. JAMS client is a Windows-based thing. It is all built on .NET, which makes perfect sense. However, that means in order for me to access it, I need to connect to a VPN, then log onto one of our Azure VMs in order to access the JAMS client. This is fine, but if for some reason I am unable to do so, it would be nice to be able to have a web-based JAMS client that has all the exact same functionality in it. There are probably a whole bunch of disadvantages that you would get with that as well, but that is definitely something that would make life easier in a few cases."
"Sometimes the UI is not the most responsive I've ever used. But because it does its job, I don't complain."
"With no programming experience, I find JAMS code-driven automation challenging due to the required PowerShell scripting."
"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."
"I would like to see the ability to interface with Microsoft group-managed service accounts, but they're still in the research phase. They need to ensure everything's legit and safe. The report designer and dashboards could also be improved. We're running 7.3, so I don't know if they have updated the reporting in 7.5, but I think the reports and dashboards could be better."
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.
