Automic Workload Automation Previous Solutions

Vinit Choudahry
Technical Consultant at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
I have been an admin on other tools as well. I was a contributor to and implemented BMC Control-M. View full review »
Christine Bauder
Assistant Director of Production Services
We ran our Finance, HCM, and CIW processes through Unicenter. I don't believe that Unicenter was very user-friendly and they found it difficult to integrate with other applications. We ran the Student Information System batch on the mainframe using CA7 as the batch scheduler. We switched from Unicenter to Automic and from the mainframe to Automic, mainly because Automic can integrate easily with any other application or service. When we got off of the mainframe and moved the student side to PeopleSoft, it only made sense to use Automic as the batch scheduler. View full review »
IT Specialist Automation Service Coordinator at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
We were previously doing manual work. There was an initiative coming from the senior management to automate more things, which is how this came about. When I joined the project, this product was already selected. I had no real say about the product. I had to learn it, because I was given CA Automic Workload Automation, and told this is what you are going to implement. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about Automic Workload Automation. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2020.
425,093 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Mohamed Elazzouzi
Production Systems Engineer at Sofrecom
I used Dollar U. There are really big differences. Dollar U has decentralized methods and tools. ONE Automation has centralized tools. It is really strong and really easy to use ONE Automation. For example, for organizing, for creating applications and clients, for manipulating the agents, for the servers, it's really easy. You just put the agent in the server application with the LI and it directly connects with the Automation Engine Server. It's amazing. View full review »
Jared Kessans
Lead Systems Administrator at Great American Insurance
For the open system side, I don't believe we were using anything previously. Probably anything that they would have been using would have been Microsoft Task Scheduler or a Unix cron. But we were not using anything that I know of at the time. We did have CA-7 on the mainframe, which we still actually use on a limited basis, but that is being sunsetted. So we were not using anything really. View full review »
Axel Lambrecht
Systems Engineer at Merck KGaA
Initial reason was the projects which from SAP R2 to R3. That was the reason why they looked for a different scheduling system. Meanwhile, we are controlling nearly all SAP systems that we have, so it has a three digit number. In this area, no one has any idea of using a different tool for it. The another direction where we hope that we can move into other directions, but without the necessary management, it can't. View full review »
VInce Sola
Manager, Application Administration at a leisure / travel company with 1,001-5,000 employees
We did not have a previous solution. View full review »
Hubert Rossle
System Specialist at a tech services company
About 15 years ago, we had CA-7 from CA. Then, we changed to the UC4 Automic. Now, we are back to CA. View full review »
Aicke Sandrock
Engineering Job Scheduling at IT S Care
It was 13 years ago, we previously used Control-M and switched to UC4. This was a management decision. View full review »
Architect & Technical Director at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Prior to this, we used other products from the CA Automation family, but with different branding. We used the AutoSys d-Series Edition. View full review »
Ali Imran
Head of Branchless Banking at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Automic has been a Greenfield project. We were the first implementation and a number of banks went with this solution after us. View full review »
UC4 Administrator at a financial services firm
When I came to the company, they were already using Automic. They had been using it for a long time. View full review »
Martin Mertens
Manager of Global Process Automation at Adidas Group
Our old solution was not able to deliver a real end-to-end automation. It was embedded in SAP. An excellent product for SAP so far, but it is not able to be scalable for the end-to-end. This was the reason why we did research at our company to do an end-to-end product assessment. In the end, the decision was to made to go with Automic. View full review »
Alain Feyereisen
Application Operating Service Manager at a financial services firm with 201-500 employees
In the beginning, we used a banking solution which was running on one platform. It was AS/400 at the time. We were changing the banking platform so it moved to a new platform. The old scheduler did not exist for the new platform. Additionally, the new banking solution needed an adapter, so we also needed a solution which could interact with this banking solution. We had more satellite systems, so we also had to handle the planning between different systems and the old scheduler, which was one platform based and it could not handle it. That was the initiative to choose a new scheduler. View full review »
Adrian Northage
Automic Admin at IT Service Solutions Service Delivery
We bought this back in 2004. We were upgrading all of our systems to SAP systems, and we wanted a scheduler. We did not want to use the SAP scheduler, so we were recommended UC4 (as it was at the time). That is why we brought it in. It was for our SAP system, but we use it on all applications now. View full review »
Michael K.
Systems Administrator at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
We were previously using CA-7. View full review »
Associate Director at Pbb Deutsche
We had a couple of solutions in place starting from Windows, Unix crontab, and other batch controlling software (like Control-M, Redwood, etc.). Batches interact with all applications, so the batch structure is more complex and using different tools was not a solution. Therefore, we needed to have one single workflow as a solution for us, and we made the decision to have one tool in place. Then, we did an evaluation, and the winner was CA. View full review »
Senior Systems Engineer at a non-tech company with 11-50 employees
In the past, we had CA-7. CA built this mainframe schedule. Then, we have canceled the contract to CA, and decided to go with UC4. Now, UC4 is a part of CA, and now we have a contract with CA again. View full review »
Hartwig Esch
Administrator at VW Financial Services
We had a previous solution. It was Control-M. We switched because there were some issues around the costs. Automic's costs were lower. View full review »
Yalin Yuksel
System Specialist at Türkiye İş Bankası
We were not previously using another product. However, we did have our own automation solution (scripting). Before Automic, there was no automation product. View full review »
Achim Henkman
Service Management at Siemens Industry
We did not have a previous solution, just something we built in-house. We have been using this solution for 20 years. View full review »
Norbert Bollinger
Production Services at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
We were not previously using another solution. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about Automic Workload Automation. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2020.
425,093 professionals have used our research since 2012.