We performed a comparison between AutoSys 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: AutoSys Workload Automation is highly recommended for its scalability, ease of use, speed, and availability. Users appreciate its excellent job arrangement, task triggering, real-time batch processing view, software process integration, and user-friendly interface. The file transfer protocol and file watcher features are also praised. IBM Workload Automation is known for its ability to incorporate user-requested features, trigger jobs in multiple nodes, and conveniently track batch applications.
AutoSys Workload Automation users have expressed a need for integration with cloud services, simplified reporting and comparison of job performance, customizable reporting features and alerts, smoother migrations, enhanced handling of file transfer jobs, and the ability to monitor and manage workload windows. IBM Workload Automation users have encountered performance problems, navigation difficulties, challenges with daily schedule refreshes, complex simulation, stability and reporting visibility enhancements, and alignment with new technologies.
Service and Support: Users have positive feedback about the customer service of AutoSys Workload Automation, describing it as excellent, beneficial, and quick to respond. IBM Workload Automation also offers exceptional technical support, which customers depend on for problems that are out of their control. Nonetheless, there may be difficulties in pinpointing the origin of specific issues.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for AutoSys Workload Automation is considered to be simple, straightforward, and quick, while the setup for IBM Workload Automation can be difficult for those who are unfamiliar with IBM tools.
Pricing: The setup cost for AutoSys Workload Automation involves a yearly subscription, an annual license, and a one-time license for the server setup. The pricing for IBM Workload Automation is dependent on the customer's contract and can fluctuate depending on the number of agents installed.
ROI: The effectiveness of AutoSys Workload Automation in terms of ROI is influenced by factors such as the size of the organization, the complexity of the workload, and the efficiency of its implementation. IBM Workload Automation focuses on enhancing efficiency, minimizing expenses, and boosting productivity.
Comparison Results: AutoSys Workload Automation is the preferred choice compared to IBM Workload Automation. Users appreciate AutoSys for its easy setup process, scalability, ease of use, speed, and availability. It offers a user-friendly interface, file transfer protocol, and file watcher features.
"Automic Automation Engine provides us the ability to map logic using a scripting language."
"It works constantly and is pretty seamless. You do not have to open up many support tickets."
"Integration with multiple services and applications across the enterprise."
"It gives us flexibility when doing releases. We can make changes for one day in a PDS member, since we stage our jobs by date, and the next day the normal job definitions are run."
"The CA workload agent has gotten much better. For our organization it's important for us to communicate in a secure fashion between the host and the other platforms, and we are able to do that with our CA product"
"We need to have things run in a very sequential order, so it is very useful that we can schedule the work flows."
"The most valuable aspects of AutoSys Workload Automation are its performance, scalability, and ease of getting started for new users."
"The scheduling feature allows us to know when jobs are going to run and makes sure they run in the order needed."
"Jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes."
"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."
"The most important feature is the creation of folders. It's a really great feature because you can organize the process with naming conventions."
"Technical support from IBM is very good."
"The support from Cisco is very good. I was with them as a company for 40 years"
"The initial setup is easy."
"Jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes."
"The technical support is great, the product is easy-to-use, and it is stable."
"Performance improvements in the UI would be appreciated."
"The WCC could be improved."
"The reporting system, currently, could be better."
"There is a difference between a web interface and the thick client interface. We particularly like a thick client interface, and it has gone away."
"Because this product only computes processing days, it is hard when things need to be scheduled according to non-processing days."
"Ease of implementation for upgrades."
"The solution could improve by having support for container environments."
"The GUI/Workstation is weak and needs to be improved. CA is working on this right now."
"The schedule refreshes daily and that's a challenge for us."
"This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly."
"It should support other schedulers that aren't IBM products."
"The performance of the previous versions could be better."
"The configuration of IBM Workload Automation has some challenges. We have a difficult time customizing it, but it is similar to other solutions."
"It is missing some features and can improve in areas where the competition is somewhat better like linking job dependencies."
"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."
"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."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while IBM Workload Automation is ranked 13th in Workload Automation with 28 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while IBM Workload Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". 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". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Stonebranch, Automic Workload Automation and CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas IBM Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, HCL Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Tidal by Redwood and BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager. See our AutoSys Workload Automation 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.