We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch Workload Automation and OpCon based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly regarded for its ability to adapt to different needs, offering prebuilt jobs and a user-friendly configuration. Its real-time monitoring and scalability are also notable features, as is its compatibility with various platforms. OpCon is commended for its flexibility and self-service capabilities, particularly in automating manual tasks. It also boasts a visually appealing graphical interface and the ability to seamlessly integrate with other systems.
ActiveBatch could enhance its managed file transfer, user interface, reliability of triggers, monitoring dashboard, documentation, support service, software setup process, email alerts, lag and stability issues, customization options, pricing, and customer support. OpCon could improve its web-based interface, upgrading process, documentation, logs, self-service functionality, cost, self-service capabilities, custom job subtypes, integration with FICS, and mainframe support.
Service and Support: ActiveBatch Workload Automation receives praise for its customer service, particularly for its helpful and reliable technical support. However, some users have expressed concerns about the service model and availability of the hotline. OpCon also receives positive feedback for its customer service, with a great support team that prioritizes urgent issues and offers timely and effective solutions.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is straightforward and uncomplicated, although there is a small requirement for additional instructions when importing files and configuring it on various systems. OpCon's initial setup can be intricate, but with support from SMA consultants, it becomes more seamless and manageable.
Pricing: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is straightforward and quick, with users finding the pricing to be fair and competitive. OpCon is recognized as a costly and intricate solution that demands time for understanding, however, it offers good value for the investment.
ROI: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has been commended for its positive financial impact, leading to a notable rise in net revenue. Users find it valuable, even though they have limited understanding of ROI monitoring. OpCon is praised for its time-saving capabilities, error reduction, and elimination of the requirement for full-time operators.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is the favored choice compared to OpCon. Users appreciate ActiveBatch's simplicity and user-friendly setup. ActiveBatch is also commended for its versatility and easy configuration, providing prebuilt jobs and an intuitive interface.
"The most valuable feature is its stability. We've only had very minor issues and generally they have happened because someone has applied a patch on a Windows operating system and it has caused some grief. We've actually been able to resolve those issues quite quickly with ActiveBatch. In all the time that I've had use of ActiveBatch, it hasn't failed completely once. Uptime is almost 100 percent."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to trigger workflows, one after another, based on success, without having to worry about overlapping workflows. The ability to integrate our BI, analytics, and our data quality jobs is also valuable"
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"What ActiveBatch allows you to do is develop a more efficient process. It gave me visibility into all my jobs so I could choose which jobs to run in parallel. This is much easier than when I have to try to do it through cron for Windows XP, where you really can't do things in parallel and know what is going on."
"ActiveBatch has reduced work by providing automated workflows across several different applications."
"Approximately ~20 hours of manual effort have been reduced to ~5 hours with the help of ActiveBatch."
"By implementing a sophisticated scheduling mechanism, the system allows for the precise triggering of jobs at user-selected frequencies, enabling a seamless and automated execution of tasks according to specified time intervals."
"The automation feature is a very valuable feature as the associates do not have to worry about performing repetitive tasks (i.e. endpoint security scans on a daily basis) that would take several hours to complete on a daily basis."
"For us, the most valuable feature of the solution is the file transfer piece and being able to automate the moving of files around between our various vendors. It reduces the time involved versus somebody having to individually move the files around."
"We particularly like the fact that it's graphical because it is Windows-based. Before, we were text-based on the mainframe. You can also produce flow charts. Because it's point-and-click, its ease of use is very nice."
"There's also a self-service solution manager... that allows us to enable staff to run complex automation tasks by clicking a button and entering some information. They don't have to have access to the OpCon environment to kick off those kinds of events."
"I find OpCon's ability to monitor files and folders, and its integration with other software to be the most valuable."
"Auto-scheduling is the most valuable feature. We have the ability to schedule [batch jobs on our Unisys mainframes] seven days in advance, so we know exactly how we're running every night."
"Previously, we would receive a file from a vendor, then we would have to go through and make changes to individual accounts in our core system. There are probably between 10 to 20 accounts any given week. It probably took around five minutes for it to run through the report and make all the changes, and that was if there was nothing complicated with all very straightforward changes. Now, that is done in 30 seconds."
"It has streamlined operations, specifically with the timing of our processes. We don't have to worry about if things are going to run at a certain time. The automation allows us to say, "Okay, we want this to run at this time, and this to not run until that is done." So, it has really streamlined the accuracy and timeline of when jobs run throughout the day."
"The greatness of it is the flexibility of the scheduling and the integration of all platforms and processes. We have integrated it with everything from AIX to Microsoft Servers; with pretty much anything that we can."
"An area for improvement in ActiveBatch Workload Automation is its interface or GUI. It could be a little better. There isn't any additional feature I'd like to see in the tool, except for the GUI, everything looks good."
"ActiveBatch UI could use a little more help, and video tutorials would be greatly appreciated for user guides."
"There are some issues with this version and finding the jobs that it ran. If you're looking at 1,000 different jobs, it shows based on the execution time, not necessarily the run time. So, if there was a constraint waiting, you may be looking for it in the wrong time frame. Plus, with thousands of jobs showing up and the way it pages output jobs, sometimes you end up with multiple pages on the screen, then you have to go through to find the specific job you're looking for. On the opposite side, you can limit the daily activity screen to show only jobs that failed or jobs currently running, which will shrink that back down. However, we have operators who are looking at the whole nightly cycle to make sure everything is there and make sure nothing got blocked or was waiting. Sometimes, they have a hard time finding every item within the list."
"The UI could potentially offer a more refined and user-friendly experience, fostering smoother interactions and facilitating easier navigation for users engaging with the application."
"As more organizations are moving towards a cloud-based infrastructure, ActiveBatch could incorporate more capabilities that support popular cloud platforms, such as AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud."
"A cloud option is not provided as a free feature, making it a costly solution for smaller organizations."
"Between version 10 and version 12 there was a change. In version 10, they had each object in its own folder. But on the back end, they saw it at the root level. So when we moved over to version 12, everything was in the same area mixed together. It was incredibly difficult and we actually had to create our own folders and move those objects—like schedules, jobs, user accounts—and manually put those into folders, whereas the previous version already had it."
"There is this back and forth, where ActiveBatch says, "Your Oracle people should be dealing with this," and Oracle people say, "No, we don't know anything about ActiveBatch." Then, it all falls back on me as to what happens. Nobody is taking responsibility. This is the biggest failing for ActiveBatch."
"I would like to see them improve the Solution Manager for the web application. It's the future for us. Our customers need a lot of functionality, but there isn't that functionality within Solution Manager. So they have to develop and improve it."
"I don't really think anything needs to be improved within the functionality. The only struggle I had, when I first started using it, is that it depends a lot on the command line and I didn't have that experience. So more built-in, basic commands or more education on commands would be good."
"The initial setup was fairly complex."
"The calendar interface and the frequency interface is a very powerful, yet complex, section of OpCon in which all our staff have made mistakes. They have implemented what they believed was logically correct and then afterward discovered that their logic was flawed because OpCon did it a different way. That part, which is incredibly useful, is also incredibly dangerous. The interface or the ability to directly do more functions within the frequency definitely has room for expansion. As good as it is, it can be a lot better."
"It was hard to automate in the beginning because there were a lot of concepts. I had to learn a lot of things, as I never used such a software before. I learned a lot of the concepts and ideas behind it in the beginning."
"I have noticed lately that [tech support's] first answers tend to be, "Let's upgrade it to the latest and greatest first," without looking into anything. The last couple of times I've logged a ticket that's been the response, which is a little frustrating. We're not big on just upgrading on a whim. We do full testing."
"The process of getting automations done and the process of testing them is a little complicated."
"It's not something you can just quickly grab, try, run, and play with. You have to get the knowledge and train yourself. It was easy for me, but I also took the time to throw myself into it. There is a learning curve to a certain extent. You have to learn the rules."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while OpCon is ranked 9th in Workload Automation with 56 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while OpCon is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpCon writes "Gives us the ability to schedule dependent jobs across different mainframes". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood and VisualCron, whereas OpCon is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation and Automic Workload Automation. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. OpCon 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.
