We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch by Redwood and Pega BPM 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."ActiveBatch helped us automate and schedule routine tasks such as data backups, file transfers, database updates, and report generation, which frees IT staff to focus on other studies."
"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 product offers a centralized platform for managing activities across many environments, applications, etc."
"I found ActiveBatch Workload Automation to be a very good scheduling tool. What I like best about it is that it has very less downtime when managing many complex scheduling workflows, so I'm very impressed with ActiveBatch Workload Automation."
"ActiveBatch's Self-Service Portal allows our business units to run and monitor their own workloads. They can simply run and review the logs, but they can't modify them. It increases their productivity because they are able to take care of things on their own. It saves us time from having to rerun the scripts, because the business units can just go ahead and log in and and rerun it themselves."
"Using this tool, if there are any huge failures, we immediately get an email notification, and the proper team will be informed, at which time they can act accordingly."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the versatility of the prebuilt jobs."
"Error Handling is one of the best standout features of ActiveBatch."
"Overall, the ability to integrate with multiple applications and effective case management is the most valuable."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its quick setup. Nowhere else you can create a good-looking application this quick. It's a fairly robust system."
"The workflow designing and integration are the most valuable features. Also, the UI design was pretty easy."
"The workflows are the most valuable features, particularly for us, because we were attempting to automate processes by utilizing workflows to provide a hands-off comparison between the bot and the human."
"It is easy to use, easy to understand, easy to implement and easy to enhance and we can do it as a Cloud. Also it is very user friendly."
"Powerful, full-featured business process management with excellent support"
"The most valuable feature is the situational layer cake."
"This solution is useful for business process management if you have any banking solutions or need to manage a process."
"A nice thing to have would be the ability to comfortably pass variables from one job to another. That was one of the things that I found difficult."
"The reporting needs improvement. There is a real need for the ability to generate audit reports on the fly. It needs to be a lot easier than what I can do right now. This is a major item for me."
"They could provide an easier installation guide or technical support to the organizations during the installation process."
"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."
"The product should be improved by providing a customization option."
"Providing some detailed training materials could be very helpful for new users who have very limited technical information about the tool."
"Except for the GUI, everything looks good."
"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."
"The unit testing needs to improve, as well as the user interface."
"An area for improvement in Pega BPM is security. It's secure, but it still has a lot of vulnerabilities. Pega BPM is robust, but it still needs some improvement performance-wise."
"It is not fully compatible with all versions of Internet Explorer, so sometimes, it does not work."
"The workflow automation can be slow, so there is room for improvement there."
"Pega's technical support could be better."
"The previous versions had good training documents but the updated versions need to improve the documentation."
"It needs more integration with other platforms."
"There is a scarcity of resources who have worked with this solution before."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 6th in Process Automation with 35 reviews while Pega BPM is ranked 2nd in Process Automation with 55 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while Pega BPM 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 Pega BPM writes "Low code with great APIs and good flexibility". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs and VisualCron, whereas Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Camunda, Appian, Microsoft Power Apps and IBM BPM. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Pega BPM 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.