We performed a comparison between AppWorx Workload Automation and Stonebranch Universal Automation Center based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AppWorx Workload Automation is praised for its easy-to-use interface and reliable performance. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is highly regarded for its excellent graphical representation and the capability to establish job dependencies.
AppWorx Workload Automation can improve by incorporating API integration, enhancing integration with other tools, and increasing scalability. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could enhance its cloud availability, analytics feature, and task monitor. Additionally, introducing a mobile app for easier job hour monitoring and calculation would be beneficial. Collaboration with the vendor for future updates is also recommended.
Service and Support: The technical support from AppWorx has been highly rated. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center's customer service and support have also received high praise. Users describe the technical support as very good, excellent, and always available to help.
Ease of Deployment: AppWorx Workload Automation's initial setup is easy and straightforward, although it might seem complex to newcomers. It necessitates administrator access and involvement, and the deployment process could take a few months. The initial setup for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center was rated as average in terms of ease.
Pricing: AppWorx Workload Automation has a costly setup determined by the number of systems used, while Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is seen as a more affordable option and favored by businesses.
ROI: AppWorx Workload Automation lacks details on ROI, while Stonebranch Universal Automation Center has proven to achieve significant cost reductions.
Comparison Results: Stonebranch Universal Automation Center outperforms AppWorx Workload Automation. Stonebranch is praised for its effortless setup process, user-friendly interface, frequent updates, and the option to establish job dependencies. Furthermore, it is regarded as more affordable than its counterparts, leading to cost-effective solutions for businesses. Users also commend Stonebranch's exceptional customer service, noting its excellence and constant availability for assistance.
"The most valuable features of AppWorx Workload Automation are simplicity and reliability. Additionally, they recently transformed the UI which is better."
"It is an object-based approach to task and process design in conjunction with conditional logic and event-based scheduling actions, which enables a build once/use often design methodology to be employed."
"It is really a robust product."
"The interface is good."
"Scheduling is a good feature."
"We have a lot of nightly jobs that need to be run. Therefore, we perform a lot of calculations and processes during nighttime hours."
"The solution is very user friendly so anyone can use it."
"It has improved my organization through automation of back office and infrastructure procedures, and by integrating and orchestrating key business applications spanning multiple technology stacks."
"We lean a lot on the multi-tenancy that they offer within the product, the ability to get other people to self-manage their estate, versus having a central team do all the scheduling."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"When it comes to agent technology and compatibility with other vendors, from a platform perspective it was the one vendor that fit all the platforms that we have, from your old platforms - mainframe, NSK, IBM i - to the new ones, going into cloud and container"
"I can name the aliases on the agent, so if we need a passive environment for an agent, that's one of the nice features. If our primary goes down, I can bring up the passive one and I don't have to change anything in the scheduling world. It will start running from that new server."
"The most valuable feature is the reliability of the agents, because we need them accessible and we need to run stuff. The agent technology and compatibility are top-notch."
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"The ability to monitor tasks that are on the open-system side as well as our mainframe side gives us a one-window view of all our processes."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"It has been a deprecated product, because it is so old. There has been a couple of new solutions that are a little more advanced."
"The graphical interface is pretty cool but not the best so it could use some improvement."
"The compliance features are limited to the server and not the entire infrastructure."
"As a general process automation and integration tool, it has been superseded by other offerings, notably the Workload Automation suite."
"The internal security model can be complex when configuring multiple user groups."
"Reporting, forecasting and intelligence could be improved."
"It is difficult to integrate with the Active Directory (AD)."
"The scalability could improve."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"There is room for improvement with its connectivity with the Microsoft SRS system. It is very weak. They keep telling us it works with it, and technically it does, but it does not provide a lot of visibility. We have lost a lot of visibility migrating to Stonebranch, compared with just running tasks on the SRS server. That's really about the only thing that is a sore point for us."
"Occasionally, we have an agent that doesn't come back up after patching. That doesn't happen very often... It's really just a restart of the agent and it comes back up. But that might be one thing that could be improved."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"The Universal Controller is decent for the money it costs... It needs some work to have full features, compared to other products that are out there, specifically IBM's Workload Scheduler."
"I have a request regarding our agent on the mainframe. It may time out when communicating to the Universal Controller, when the mainframe is extremely busy. That can cause a task which is running at that time to not see the results of the job that ran on the mainframe. It happens sporadically during times of really busy CPU usage. We're expecting that enhancement from them in the fourth quarter."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"One hiccup we've had is due to the fact that we have other internal scheduling tools. We're able to talk to them, but we have trouble with some of the networking between them, so we're still trying to work out the kinks there."
AppWorx Workload Automation is ranked 17th in Workload Automation with 7 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. AppWorx Workload Automation is rated 8.0, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AppWorx Workload Automation writes "The scheduling tool and finance module are valuable features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". AppWorx Workload Automation is most compared with Automic Workload Automation, Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation and Automic Automation Intelligence, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and HCL Workload Automation. See our AppWorx Workload Automation vs. Stonebranch 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.
