We performed a comparison between AutoSys Workload Automation and Rocket Zena based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AutoSys Workload Automation is highly regarded for its scalability, speed, and availability. It is also appreciated for its capability to connect software processes. Rocket Zena is particularly notable for its user-friendly nature, intuitive user interface, diagram feature, and the simplicity of its Linux configuration.
The reviewers mentioned that AutoSys Workload Automation can improve its integration with cloud services, reporting and comparison of job performance, customization of reporting features and alerts, handling file transfer jobs, monitoring capabilities, advanced features and functionalities, and workload window management. Rocket Zena needs improvement in visibility into connections between applications/components, monitoring of agents, process limitations, user interface, web interface, task stacking, documentation, availability on a distributed platform, and communication between servers.
Service and Support: The customer service for AutoSys Workload Automation is highly regarded, with users praising its effectiveness, helpfulness, and responsiveness. Rocket Zena's customer service is also well-received, with responsive and knowledgeable technical support. However, obtaining higher-level support may sometimes take longer.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for AutoSys Workload Automation is described as simple and efficient, whereas Rocket Zena's setup experience differed among users, with some finding it easier to understand but others finding it complicated.
Pricing: AutoSys Workload Automation has a yearly subscription and an annual license. Rocket Zena is known for its cost-effectiveness and affordability, offering satisfactory licensing and good pricing.
ROI: AutoSys Workload Automation does not provide user feedback or information on ROI. Rocket Zena has demonstrated its ability to enhance efficiency and accuracy.
Comparison Results: AutoSys Workload Automation is favored over Rocket Zena. AutoSys is commended for its simple setup, scalability, user-friendliness, and useful features like job orchestration and real-time batch processing. Users also value the customer service and support provided by AutoSys. AutoSys Workload Automation offers a more extensive and user-friendly solution.
"Without this product we would have to manually submit jobs and it would take longer. There would also be a much greater possibility of jobs running wrong and/or not at the right time."
"It's very easy to work with. The learning curve is not that steep."
"It allows you to automate tasks, and reduce headcount, prevent errors, self-heal."
"Integration with multiple services and applications across the enterprise."
"The most valuable feature of AutoSys Workload Automation is user-friendliness. If someone has some knowledge of the tool they can use it."
"It gives us flexibility when doing releases. We can make changes for one day in a PDS member, since we stage our jobs by date, and the next day the normal job definitions are run."
"AutoSys Workload Automation is scalable."
"It works constantly and is pretty seamless. You do not have to open up many support tickets."
"From a Linux configuration point of view, Rocket Zena is straightforward. It's fairly easy to set up the server and agents once you know how to do it."
"You can click Ctrl-G and bring a diagram view. You're able to view in a diagram format. The view that it provides is easy, and you can move to the left, up, or down. You can double-click on a certain process. It'll drill into that process and all of its underlying components. You can double-click on an arrow or a component, and it'll bring up a screen that'll have all the variables that are assigned to that particular piece, as well as the values at run time. So, the diagram feature of it, at least for me, is pretty valuable."
"I have used other tools with similar capabilities; it's the ease of use."
"We haven't had any problems since we installed it. It runs as expected, we haven't had any critical problems. It helps keeps the business running 24/7."
"I have found the scheduling feature the most valuable. I can map dependencies by using ASG-Zena. It gives a nice, quick visualization as to where things are."
"Its FTP feature is very good, as is scheduling any process or task with the Zena client. I have found it to be very helpful. If a task fails, it gives you a prompt."
"In the latest upgrade, Zena added a web-based client. The more I use it, the more I like it. It's an excellent interface. They do a good job of steadily improving the solution to make it more useful."
"I like the whole product, but specifically, I like the license part. It's very easy to acquire a license for this product."
"Reduce the number of operational files. This would make the job of a system programmer supporting ESP easier."
"It would be helpful to be able to monitor and manage workload windows so we could minimize downstream applications. This would allow us easier access to the applications."
"Some of the reports are either a bit hard to understand or don’t give you what you might expect to see."
"Because this product only computes processing days, it is hard when things need to be scheduled according to non-processing days."
"SQL server clustering is not supported."
"They could do better supporting it. They have too many of the same type of products, so sometimes it doesn't get as much attention as it should."
"The cross-platform arena, where you can run work on multiple platforms, needs improvement."
"The visibility and control features are somewhat limited."
"The scheduling mapping is a little disjointed. There is no wizard-type approach. There are a lot of different things that you have to do in completely different areas. They could probably add the functionality for creating all components of a mapping or an OPA schedule. The component creation could be done collectively rather than through individual components."
"One area where it could be improved is communication between the different servers. Sometimes there are processes that have already been completed but we get a status notification that they're still active."
"In the next release, I would like the user experience to be improved. The user interface should be more appealing to gen-z."
"The UI is not intuitive, and it would be nice if there was a web interface."
"In the web interface, it stacks the tasks across the top, and they accumulate until you close or clean those out. That seems a little cumbersome. You must right-click and close all tabs constantly to keep the console clean and manage your views."
"Rocket Zena is a mainframe-based job scheduler. I would like it to be more open so that we can use it on a distributed platform."
"The documentation has room for improvement."
"In the next release, I would like to have an alert feature to indicate when an agent is down. Rocket Zena is not capable of sending alerts that the agent is down. As of now, you have manually monitor to see when the agent is down."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while Rocket Zena is ranked 12th in Workload Automation with 9 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while Rocket Zena is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rocket Zena writes "A continuously evolving, stable solution, with responsive support". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Stonebranch and CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas Rocket Zena is most compared with Control-M, Rocket Zeke, IBM Workload Automation and ActiveBatch by Redwood. See our AutoSys Workload Automation vs. Rocket Zena 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.