It was a pretty stable tool. Now when you are dependent upon automation, the knowledge to do the month-end close process is not needed and goes away since you can automate it. There aren't any businesses supporting the automation of the month-end close very aggressively, and because of this, I don't have instances where we weren't able to complete it on a timely basis.

The solution's stability is better than other products. We do not see the solution fail much at all. 

We had issues with other products where servers would go down or items needed to be fixed and that caused struggles. 

The solution is stable. My customers have not raised tickets in years.

Automic is 99 percent stable. We've never had a problem with stability.

The stability is good. I'd rate it seven out of ten. 

I consider the solution stable. 

It is stable. We are not experiencing any major issues.

It works. It does not fail. If something fails, it is not Automic. It is a script or something else.

We are an electricity company, and we issue hundreds of thousands of bills to customers every month. Automic is key in getting the billing files ready, so they can be sent out to the customers. We are heavily regulated by an Irish regulator. Therefore, if there is any delay with bills going out and the process around it, we can be heavily fined. Thus, it is crucial that we have software that makes everything run smoothly.

Like any product, there are glitches. We had used ESP for almost 30 years. So, we were very familiar with the tool, and it was pretty stable. This is an agent-based solution. So, sometimes, the agents don't respond and triggers don't work. Those kinds of issues are still there.

Automic Workload Automation is a stable solution. It's good because, architecture-wise, it has high reliability. So, we recommend it to our customers and ask them to use two or three-node architecture. If one goes down, the other should be up. So, two or three-node architecture is stable.

The stability is fine. There are always a few little parts or points with issues, but overall, it is very stable.

The product itself is very stable; we have not encountered stability issues with it.

It is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. I'd rate the stability nine out of ten. 

Stability is a 10 out of 10.

It is not stable all the time. Just now, we upgraded and we found out that it does not support the requirement that is an important computer in our environment, so the new version is not stable right now. I spoke with them and I hope they understand that they have to fix this.

The system is a stable product overall. We did something maybe a little bit wrong at the beginning, so we had a little bit of an unstable product. Since we have merged to version 12, it has become a stable system.

It is very stable.

The system is very stable. I have very impressed with it. Also, it all depends on if it is Linux and Oracle or Windows and SQL. We have both in our company, and both are very stable.

Stability has been great. My team, we call ourselves "the invisibles" because things run so well that sometimes you almost feel like you have to try to break something to actually get acknowledged.

There have been some issues with performance when there is slowness with database resources. We have also discovered issues with some objects if file size/count is high. I believe a patch has been created for that though.

Version 10 is stable. New software never comes out without some problems. That is the problem when you go with new. Therefore, we are waiting a little bit, since it is very important that the software is stable. In the near future, we must have a stable software that we can do our job yesterday, today, and tomorrow. This is the most important thing; you must trust the software. 

We have had issues with the performance. We have a job now in production, but the product is not very stable. ServiceNow creates problems with the Automic entry of the connector, so the stability could be a little bit better with this product.

Yes, as mentioned before, we are constantly having issues due to bugs or things that should work, but don’t. In a high demand, time critical environment, it is not viewed as a reliable product requiring use of external means to continue when there is an outage.

Workload Automation's stability is okay.

It's pretty stable. After implementation, there hasn't been a single event where we shifted our jobs for the day from automated to manual.

We have been using Automic for two and a half years. It is very rare to have a problem. If we have databases working well, Automic has never let us down.

Version 10 is very stable. We have no problems with the product. 

Some problems could happen in the future because the current version does not seem to be stable. There are a lot of things which could bring danger into the stability of our work process, because things have been changed, and it is not possible to work the product in the same way. We have to accept the changes, and we are not sure if our employees will be able to accept the changes in such a short time frame and perform them the way they should.

At my company, if there is a limit, we are going to find it. Everything has a finite limit. No matter what people tell you about any type of software, it is always a finite limit. However, compared to other competitors' software packages, this has been a lot more stable, but no software is completely stable. If there's a limit, we're gonna find it. Our company pushes the envelope when it comes to the data we process, display, and publish to our users, so sometimes we find those limits. Overall, especially since we have dealt with the competitor for a number of years before we switched over to Automic CA, it has been pretty stable. 

No issues with stability. Highly stable environment.

The product demonstrates excellent stability, regardless of whether the installation has high availability or not. We have not seen any problems in this regard.

During the PoC, it was easy to use.

I have been working on it for about 12 years now. We have had three unplanned outages throughout the whole time, and all three were man-made errors (someone pulling the plug out).

We have some systems where, every time we lose the network connection, the software, after five or 10 minutes, is inoperable. With Automic, we monitor what is happening, and if network connectivity is down, Automic deletes all the logs that caused the system to crash. Before Automic, we needed to handle these situations manually. Now, every time that logs crowd the system, Automic deletes them and solves the problem.

That means we do not have this type of downtime anymore. It is system crucial for us.

Both the stability and the scalability of Automic Workload Automation are great.

The stability is not as good as it was in former years. Stability has gone down from version to version, but it is probably due to the product's complexity and transitions in the company. Stability could be better, as it was better in the past.

Very stable. The tool we had before this tool, we were nervous around patching cycles, and we were nervous for datacenter downtime because we didn't how that tool was going to react. But this tool, far better than the tool we had before and we probably don't even really have to think about the stability. It's sort of like a good piece of software is like a good referee. If it's doing good, you don't notice it. That's the good thing about Automic. We don't even notice that it's there a lot of the time. It's a very, very stable product.

Stability is good. We just upgraded, so there are a few things we're working on, but otherwise it's pretty stable.

Yes. If Automic will be your automation platform or the orchestration platform, then you must build it in a high availability mode, which is what we did together with the guys from Automic. Now, this system is basically available 24/7. If one connector is failing, we have an HA connector that will replace it, so you must design the platform to be stable. The platform itself, it's stable. But once again, if you need to work 24/7, there is no way. I am working with the Custom Authority, and the Custom Authority in Israel is a very challenging organization. There is no way that we wouldn't be able to transfer data to customs, because if you don't transfer data, then we wouldn't be able to deliver to our customers abroad, so we need to be working 24/7 because a lot of stuff is being done automatically behind the scenes.

I am a long-time customer of the solution. The older versions were very stable. Then, there was a switch to versions eight and version nine. This was a few years ago. 

I am happy that Automic understands the needs of their customers and changed their development process, because now, the application is very stable.

Stability has been very good. We have not had any major issues or very much downtime at all. If we have had downtime, it has been planned. So, stability has never been an issue for us. 

I've not had any issues with the stability, at all. None that I'm aware of.

This solution is stable.

All products have downtime. In our specific example, the product has become so critical for our organization that taking the necessary plan-maintenance, to do patching and upgrading, that has become a challenge for us. We're several versions behind now. 

Outages that we incur are at least partially our fault at this point, because our reliance on the platform has become so much that it's a struggle to even upgrade. That aside, we see some downtime from time to time. But I think some of it is self-incurred. We would do ourselves a favor in working on this, to get the platform upgraded to get to the more stable, bugs-are-fixed, and things of that nature.

The stability of the platform has been excellent. They are very quick to reply to any issues that we have, and release any hotfixes to fix any issues we have had. We have not had any stability issues with the platform. 

The performance is nice. The stability is very good. We do not have any problems concerning the stability. We have never had any major problems. We have had minor problems, but it has not crashed hard. It runs our business safely.

We have had no big production issues in the five years that we have had this product. So, it is really stable.

Regarding stability, so far it's working fine with us.

It is stable 99% of the time.

Our issues have been mostly because of the Tomcat interface. The other interface, the fat client, has been stable until now, and looks good.

It is very stable. I have set up a personal environment on some virtual machines, and it was very smooth and fast. Thus, the performance is very good.

It has zero downtime, which is very good. This is impressive for anyone who wants to use this solution.

One of the previous bug fix issues created new bugs, which was not good. 

The main part of it is stable, though.

The stability of the tool is fantastic. In the year and a half, it's really only gone down a couple of times. The tool itself is very stable.

What's nice is that it splits it up into clients. We have our own client where we do our own work. We don't have to cross into the path of other people; they can do their own work on their own client. From an organizational standpoint, that makes it very easy to use. The stability of the piece itself, has been proven pretty well.

It's super. It's solid. Never goes down. For me as a user of it, it's solid.

This is a very stable product. When it comes to a new release, you sometimes have to be a bit more careful. For the rest, it is very stable. Over the years, it has also become more stable.

Right now, it is decent. The new version is sort of a downgrade because some features that we need are gone. The version before was more stable than the current one because we are having some problems with the performance. Therefore, I hope the next version(s) will be better again. However, right now, it is not as good as it used to be.

Stability is okay.

I am working with Workload Automation for more than ten years, when it was named UC4, then renamed again, etc. We have never had big problems with stability of this product.

The performance is very good. If there are problems, they will be caused by somebody doing something wrong. Usually the product does not have a lot of problems, and we did recognize when the application has failed due to errors.

If you implemented with Service Pack 4 or 5, then its fine. The first version tends to be rather unstable.

It is 100% stable. We have no downtime. We have 24/7 production throughout the year.

It has a good source code that we administrate. We can expand the system.

I have worked a long time with this product. Formally, it was previously known as UC4. In the past, it was more stable than now. 

As we have seen, the latest version that we checked out at our customers was Version 12. This version needs to be more stable. 

The first version and service pack, we could not use at our customers because it had special bugs and issues, and we decide to wait. 

From my point of view, the current product needs more stability.

It runs stably. However, after a version upgrade, the stability should be better.

There are too many bugs to be solved after a version upgrade. We are working on the limits of an architecture with 16,000 platforms. It is impossible to test everything out in the software lab of CA. I wish it would be improved.

I haven't seen any issues regarding stability.

The stability is good. 

12.1 is very stable. We started with 10.6, which was okay. 12.0 was terrible, then we switched to 12.1, and now it is okay.

Now, we have version 12 running. We do not like having the newer functions, because it affects the stability. The stability must be better, and the system must work with better functionality, as we have many bugs in this version. This is not good. CA must have higher quality.

At the moment, the stability is good. We are experiencing a technical problem with the system, in regards to the VPN, which we hope will be fixed in the next few years.

Compared to other products, the stability is remarkable.

We do not use some of the special features. We use a very plain level of it: just starts and stops, calendar functions, schedules, and events. We have no add-ons on top of them. 

Absolutely.

This is a stable product and we plan on continuing to use it in the future.

It is quite stable. I have been with the company for a year and a half, and in that time, we have not had any major breakdowns. We do not have many issues with the stability at the moment. 

We are now testing on the new release and the AWI. We are a little skeptical about what is coming up, but we will wait and see.

It is more stable now. In the previous versions 8 and 10, it is more stable, but with the AVI version 12, it is more complicated and we encounter a lot of problems. We need to install hot pieces and badges every time, so it means downtime for us. This is starting from version 12, which is why we are not happy with it. 

The stability is very good. We have not had any crashes or downtime with it in our testing. We are very happy with it and it runs pretty fast.  

This is a very stable product and personally, I have not had any issues with it. Our vision includes continuing to use it in the future.

We have downtime during every upgrade. In the normal process, it works fine. 

It is a stable product.

In terms of stability, so far so good. We have not encountered any bugs in this solution.

At the moment, we are using 2.0. The job automation is okay. The main functions are stable. There are bugs though.

At the moment, it is working quite well. Version nine's stability was not good. Now, it is stable again.

Apart from the new UI, it is very stable. The new UI feels unready. It makes your browsers crash.

The stability is not as good as it could be, because we are on version 10, but it is okay.

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. Then, after a few months, they get more stability, and we are happy with it.

It is a stable product.