Our developers chose the solution because of its scalability, stability, and features. Technical support is also much better than what competitors offer.

The solution allows us to do everything we want. We can use it for smaller items or large-scale projects with no problems. 

We're a consulting company and run a lot of POCs with customers looking for other solutions. 

While I did not evaluate other options, it's my understanding that my managers did. I don't have any details, however.

We have not found another product that can do what Automic can do. 

I know that it was evaluated against other tools in 2000, but I do not know which ones.

I believe we looked at BMC and other CA products but chose Automic because of its ability to easily integrate with other applications and services, and because of how user-friendly it is.

That would have been 20 years ago, so the market is a little different than it was back then. There are solutions today that did not exist back then. Pretty much all of the big players still exist today. But we're definitely in a different place today than we were back then.

On the shortlist, when we purchased the product, we had CA, Stonebranch, BMC Control-M, Automic, and our current vendor in mind. A few of them were kicked out during the first session because they were not able to deliver everything. In the end, we had BMC and Automic.

We did not evaluate anyone else for job scheduling.

Before we have our main releases, we always check between other products for the batch. In the last few years, it has always been Automic which was best for our needs.

I have seen all different types of scheduling systems. It is the best for my company to handle.

I am unsure as it was before I started administering the application.

We looked at BMC, Tidal Software, ORSYP, and ActiveBatch.

From the bad products, the Automic is the best. All products in the market are not good since they are simple workload scheduling. There are some things are missing in the Automic product, which our management does not see.

I wasn’t around for this.

I got brought in when they signed the contract.

No.

We only evaluated Broadcom (CA Technologies) products.

It ticked all the boxes. We were looking at WLMD, Automic, or CCM to have more future proof capability than what we would like. You have got the functionality and everything like that. What we would like seemed to be a strategic product, whereas maybe in the past it was a lot of by-products, use it and throw it away. So that appealed to us.

We actually got to physically use the product before saying, "Yes."

We also looked at BMC PATROL, and I think two things impressed me versus BMC:

1. The tool fit and the migration were a lot more automated.
2. CA company engagement.

We evaluated some competitors a decade ago, and Automic (UC4) was the best choice. We look at the product and features. We did tests and an installation of the product, then we decided on Automic.

The other competitors, 10 years ago, were CA and IBM.

Control-M from BMC was one of the applications which we looked at or tested. IBM also has some solutions in this area, and HP in the DevOps orchestration. They have very good platforms, very good approach, very scalable, very stable, and from my personal experience and perspective, it just helped my business grow and cope with all our digital challenges.

We started the concept of working with Automic when we looked for a tool that would help us to automate our business. It started in the infrastructure level, because everybody wanted to automate their infrastructure stuff to do basic scheduling and standard things that you are doing in an organization, especially in the IT department.

Basically, we are divided between infrastructure and business applications, so in my IT department where the infrastructure recedes, we have thousands of processors that were created there manually by coding with all kind of windows applications or something like that. In Israel, we are the biggest company who is doing deliveries and managing a global supply chain operation, so we have a lot of legacy systems. It's a 25 year-old company, and we have a lot of legacy systems and a lot of old code from the past years that we need to manage or handle.

We started off looking for an automation tool that would help us to just upgrade old processes to some kind of a new system, and that is how we found Automic.

Possibly IBM, because we are a big IBM customer.

No. We just decided to stay with what we had because we have had really good luck with it and we are very satisfied with the product. 

Really take a look at Automic. They are a great company to work with and they have the best automation package out there. We did look at a lot of different packages when we were out there. I was not part of the initial decision process, but I did see the use cases that they did, the companies that they looked at, because they made the decision shortly after I came.

They looked at BMC and Tivoli. It was quite a while ago, but they were able to come and do a proof of concept very quickly with our use cases and really show value quickly.

No competitor has this mass possibilities to design processors for automation solutions.

There were a couple other vendors.

Automic is gaining much more ground than other products. The other one is the BMC, but it is not as good. 

CA was the only vendor on our shortlist.

We are a partner of CA technology. They let us know that they wanted us to invest in this product, particularly in Italy, because they work in Italy. That is why I started to learn this product.

If the company is big, use Automic because you are able to automate things more easily. 

If the company is smaller, use Control-M. The understanding of it is easier than Automic, because it offers more. So, if you are smaller and don't need such overload, use something else, like Control-M.

Our customers also evaluated Tivoli and BMC. 

Our customers also evaluated Redwood Software. However, they do not have the same flexibility as CA.

What makes it stand out from the competitors I have seen is it has distributed architecture. If you look at BMC Control-M vs Automic Workload Automation, the brain is the central, enterprise management server. That's where all the jobs reside. Every day, a new set of jobs loads onto the agent, and then the agent executes. If the central server is down, there will be no jobs executing across the environment.

However, when it comes to CA Automic, it has a distributed architecture which means all the logic, all the jobs, reside on the agent itself. Irrespective of whether the management server is running or not, your jobs will execute in a timely way. The only challenge could be that you will not be able to see their outcome. You will not be able to monitor them. That could be a challenge. But again, at least the jobs are executing in a timely fashion, as they're supposed to, in your environment.

We evaluate vendors every year to see if it is possible to change. We look everywhere.

We have had Atomic since 2005. It was the only software with scheduling on the mainframe for clients. 

If we had a choice to choose again, we'd choose something different.

We've been plugged into the product for 20 years now, so it's a little difficult to do that, although I have teams or agencies now, that are breaking away and they're going and using other tools now. I got one agency using TFS. I've got another agency using GitHub, so I'm seeing the breaking down of this whole process. A lot of it has to do with the stability of the Visual Studio plugin, which has not been very good.

We looked at this solution and we also look at another company. The reason we went with this solution is because we had been working with them for a long time and we trusted their products. For us, our learning curve would not be as steep.

I do not remember.

We did not evaluate anyone else.