We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Chef based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC, Tidal Software by Redwood, Redwood Software and others in Workload Automation."We have seen big improvements in automation and automated tasks allowing our people to work on more important things for the company, as well as getting financial data quicker."
"Support is good and it works fine."
"The scalability is good because you can add on as many services and processes as you want."
"The scalability is great."
"The monitoring and troubleshooting features are rich and with the dashboards and other features, automation work is made easier."
"Both the stability and the scalability of Automic Workload Automation are great."
"Being able to script, create something I want the software to do for a specific job. This allows me to do that. Very powerful."
"We use it with automation, getting more speed to solve business processes."
"The most valuable feature is the language that it uses: Ruby."
"Chef recipes are easy to write and move across different servers and environments."
"Deployment has become quick and orchestration is now easy."
"It has been very easy to tie it into our build and deploy automation for production release work, etc. All the Chef pieces more or less run themselves."
"We have had less production issues since using Chef to automate our provisioning."
"It is a well thought out product which integrates well with what developers and customers are looking for."
"If you're handy enough with DSL and you can present your own front-facing interface to your developers, then you can actually have a lot more granular control with Chef in operations over what developers can perform and what they can't."
"The scalability of the product is quite nice."
"The search is sometimes a little bit slow."
"The manage file transfer area could be better. The file transfer area needs improvement. Other products like Control-M have some good features in this area."
"The web-based edition is missing a lot of the most important features available in Automic, we have absence. For example, when I'm scheduling a job, there is normally a flag that you can toggle to activate and deactivate the task, but that doesn't work properly in the web version. It's missing a lot of the calendar and scheduling features."
"We would like a way to test our cloud-based automations on-premises, and then migrate them to the cloud after they have been tested, without needing an additional license."
"I would like more training on workload automation, because I do not have a complete insight of the product yet."
"They need to refine the system basics instead of adding more features."
"The only thing that we would like improved is the FTP agent. It only supports SOCKS proxy, and we would like it to also support an HTTP proxy."
"Our users are used to the flatline of the UC4. When we introduced the AVI, they are not interested nor motivated to use it."
"I would also like to see more analytics and reporting features. Currently, the analytics and reporting features are limited. I'll have to start building my own custom solution with Power BI or Tableau or something like that. If it came with built-in analytics and reporting features that would be great."
"They could provide more features, so the recipes could be developed in a simpler and faster way. There is still a lot of room for improvement, providing better functionalities when creating recipes."
"I would like them to add database specific items, configuration items, and migration tools. Not necessarily on the builder side or the actual setup of the system, but more of a migration package for your different database sets, such as MongoDB, your extenders, etc. I want to see how that would function with a transition out to AWS for Aurora services and any of the RDBMS packages."
"The solution could improve in managing role-based access. This would be helpful."
"Since we are heading to IoT, this product should consider anything related to this."
"I would like to see more security features for Chef and more automation."
"The agent on the server sometimes acts finicky."
"Chef could get better by being more widely available, adapting to different needs, and providing better documentation."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Chef is ranked 15th in Configuration Management with 18 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Chef is rated 8.0. 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 ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Chef writes "Useful for large infrastructure, reliable, but steep learning cureve". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and AppWorx Workload Automation, whereas Chef is most compared with Jenkins, AWS Systems Manager, Microsoft Azure DevOps, BigFix and Microsoft Configuration Manager.
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.
