We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch by Redwood and BizTalk Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Process Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Since I started using this product, I have been able to easily track everything as it mainly monitors, alerts, and looks after all the services - even across platform scheduling - which has helped me immensely."
"From a scheduling point of view, it is pretty good."
"The product offers a centralized platform for managing activities across many environments, applications, etc."
"There are hundreds of pre-built steps."
"For developers, it is easy to orchestrate the workflows and the integration has been very easy."
"Approximately ~20 hours of manual effort have been reduced to ~5 hours with the help of ActiveBatch."
"It is very useful in sending confidential files through FPP servers."
"We use the main job-scheduling feature. It's the only thing we use in the tool. That's the reason we are using the tool: to reduce costs by replacing manual tasks with automated tasks and to perform regular, repetitive tasks in a more reliable way."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its integration with the banks. Its messaging and routing capabilities are good."
"We can handle a large number of messages without any issues, ensuring that everything runs smoothly."
"BIzTalk's integration with Visual Studio is the most valuable feature of this product."
"Essentially, you can do whatever you like with these systems, and you do not have to take care about the scaling because if one server is overloaded, it just forwards the message to the next server, even if it were designated to a specific server. It weeds out the messages according to the load. If you want to scale it, you just add new servers."
"I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of BizTalk Server is that it will turn XML into flexible transactions."
"A cloud option is not provided as a free feature, making it a costly solution for smaller organizations."
"ActiveBatch UI could use a little more help, and video tutorials would be greatly appreciated for user guides."
"The product should be improved by providing a customization option."
"The monitoring dashboard could have been more user-friendly so that in the monitoring dashboard itself we can see the total number of jobs created in the system and how many were currently active/scheduled/chained."
"They could provide an easier installation guide or technical support to the organizations during the installation process."
"One thing I've noticed is that navigation can be difficult unless you are familiar with the structure that we have in place. If someone else had to look at our ActiveBatch console and find a job, they might not know where to find it."
"They have some crucial design flaws within the console that still need to be worked out because it is not working exactly how we hoped to see it, e.g., just some minor things where when you hit the save button, then all of a sudden all your job's library items collapse. Then, in order to continue on with your testing, you have to open those back up. I have taken that to them, and they are like, "Yep. We know about it. We know we have some enhancements that need to be taken care of. We have more developers now." They are working towards taking the minor things that annoy us, resolving them, and getting them fixed."
"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."
"BizTalk Server is an outdated legacy system that does not support messaging."
"BizTalk is in the past, Microsoft is not going to evolve it any further or add any new features."
"The product could be improved in monitoring, managing, and support functionalities."
"The deployment could be simplified."
"It's a complex product because you have many degrees of freedom to connect different parts together. Whether it's sensible or not, is up to you, but the machine does allow it. But because of the vast degrees of freedom, it's complex."
"The product's deployment can be quicker"
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 6th in Process Automation with 35 reviews while BizTalk Server is ranked 25th in Process Automation with 10 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while BizTalk Server is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of BizTalk Server writes "Helps us implement complex mapping and integration, but deployment could be simplified". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, VisualCron and IBM Workload Automation, whereas BizTalk Server is most compared with IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services, SAP Process Orchestration, Camunda, SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite and Bizagi. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. BizTalk Server report.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Process 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.
