We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch Workload Automation and Automic Workload Automation 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 flexibility, simplicity, and ready-made tasks. It provides live monitoring, automatic scheduling, and effective resource management. Automic Workload Automation receives acclaim for its strength, scalability, and straightforward integration. It enables control over various operating systems and products, offering a wide array of features and a user-friendly interface.
ActiveBatch Workload Automation can be enhanced in areas such as managed file transfer, licensing, cloud aspect, user interface, reliability of triggers, monitoring dashboard, price, documentation, support, and integration capabilities. Automic Workload Automation requires improvement in automation sets, language support, functionality, interface, web-based edition, file transfer, pricing, and support.
Service and Support: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has been praised for its customer service, specifically its helpful and responsive technical support. However, there are concerns about the service model and availability of the hotline. Automic Workload Automation has received mixed reviews, with some customers appreciating quick response times and helpful knowledge articles. However, others have faced challenges in reaching support and experienced delays in issue resolution.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is straightforward and uncomplicated, although it can be slightly challenging when implementing it on various operating systems. The initial setup for Automic Workload Automation can be time-consuming and intricate, taking anywhere from one to five days.
Pricing: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly regarded for its flexible and reasonably priced setup cost. Users find it to be competitive when compared to other tools. Automic Workload Automation has experienced pricing changes. While some users view it as expensive, they still consider it affordable in comparison to similar solutions.
ROI: Active Workload Automation has been highly regarded for its ability to generate positive financial outcomes, resulting in a notable increase in net revenue ranging from 20% to 30%. Automic Workload Automation did not provide much ROI for users and was perceived as an added expenditure.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is the preferred choice when compared to Automic Workload Automation. Users appreciate ActiveBatch for its straightforward setup process and intuitive interface, while Automic is acknowledged to have different degrees of complexity. ActiveBatch is also praised for its versatility, offering prebuilt jobs and a user-friendly configuration.
"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."
"Managing the workload and monitoring the tasks were very difficult with manual interventions. Now, by using ActiveBatch, the process is automated and it runs tasks on a scheduled basis."
"The nice thing about ActiveBatch is once we have created a specific job that can be easily be replicated to another job, then minimal changes will have to be made. This makes things nice. Reduction of coding is substantial in a lot of cases. The replication of one job to another is just doing a few minor tweaks and rolling it into production. This decreases our development costs substantially."
"It has helped with scheduling complex jobs with simple scripts."
"Approximately ~20 hours of manual effort have been reduced to ~5 hours with the help of ActiveBatch."
"From a scheduling point of view, it is pretty good."
"The REST API adapters and native integrations for integrating and orchestrating the software stack are very flexible."
"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 most valuable features are that a lot systems are supported. You can use this for z/OS, Windows, Unix, SAP, etc."
"It is 100% stable. We have no downtime. We have 24/7 production throughout the year."
"We use it to automate our business."
"The product has benefited our organization. It saves time and manpower."
"It is not possible do our jobs without automation software. Automic is a great help to us."
"The most valuable feature is that I do not have to wait for one job to finish, then manually click on the next one to start. Automation is the best feature."
"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."
"The solution includes many features and is scalable and stable."
"I can't get the cleaning up of logs to work consistently. Right now, we are not setup correctly, and maybe it is something that I have not effectively communicated to them."
"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."
"The help center and documentation are not that helpful."
"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."
"Except for the GUI, everything looks good."
"The user interface can be improved so that it is more appealing and accessible to new users."
"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."
"They could provide an easier installation guide or technical support to the organizations during the installation process."
"We would also like improved SLR monitoring. There are SLR objects, but I can't define an SLR object plus one, or end days. I can only do it for one day. As we are time shifting to another day, it is not possible. This should be improved."
"I would like to see the event engine in the next release."
"For the user interface of version 12.1, I cannot find a lot of utilities and objects from previous versions, making me change my habits. This is not good."
"Content of file transfers cannot be searched by the system, but has to be done by the user interface. This is not good, as it has been erased often."
"For power users, it does not work well for them at the moment."
"It has a very complicated interface, which could be made to be more user-friendly."
"There are some problems when using the new interface."
"The frustration that we have probably had in the past is where CA tools run for a period of time, then they get deprecated, and you have to build a new one."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Automic Workload Automation writes "A tool requiring an easy setup phase that provides its users with flexibility and flow chart visibility ". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, VisualCron and Rocket Zena, whereas Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Dollar Universe Workload Automation. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Automic 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.
