We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Automic Workload Automation is highly praised for its strong and scalable nature, as well as its easy implementation. Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition is known for its impressive job definition capabilities, effective error handling, and seamless integration with different systems.
Automic can improve in several areas such as pre-configured automation sets, language compatibility, features, user interface, web-based version, file transfer management, pricing, and SaaS deployment. Redwood has the potential to enhance reporting functionalities, address minor problems, enhance monitoring and alert services, incorporate machine learning capabilities, and offer more comprehensive documentation.
Service and Support: Customers have had differing experiences with Automic Workload Automation's customer service. Some appreciate the prompt response and informative knowledge articles, while others have encountered challenges in contacting the support team. Redwood Software's customer service is generally regarded as satisfactory and beneficial, although there is still room for enhancement.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Automic can take anywhere from one to five days, depending on the size of the project. A small team of one to three individuals is typically enough for this task. Redwood Software's setup is known to be complicated and time-consuming because of its large number of jobs and the complexity of the existing system.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a high setup cost. Redwood Software has a distinct pricing model based on the number of job executions, making it more affordable compared to competitors such as Control-M and UC4.
ROI: The lack of specific ROI numbers and higher costs led to the decision not to renew Automic Workload Automation. Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition has demonstrated positive outcomes with a 10% return on investment.
Comparison Results: Automic Workload Automation is the preferred choice when compared to Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition. Users praise Automic for its strong capabilities, scalability, easy implementation, and comprehensive features. Automic excels in providing control across multiple operating systems and products, which is beneficial for environments with a combination of old and new technologies.
"The solution helped us fix issues and optimize them. We now run with zero errors."
"The solution is integrated across all applications and platforms in our company. We can provide everything from the very first data source to the data target in one immense code."
"Our company uses it to connect different systems."
"As far as our schedules, if we have problems, we can create our own process in the automation, which is good."
"We use it to automate our business."
"It is 100% stable. We have no downtime. We have 24/7 production throughout the year."
"The scalability is very good. We can scale it however we want."
"It saves my customers time, money, resources, and efficiency."
"Installing and configuring Redwood agents are easy, and scheduling jobs on Redwood helps in triggering the batches as per business requirements."
"By automating the job processes it has saved us a lot of time and resources."
"Multi-platform scheduling makes it easier this way rather than accessing one platform at a time."
"The automated alert response is very useful for long-running and failed jobs during off-business hours."
"It's a very powerful tool. It has a lot of flexibility for how you can define jobs and build them. There are different ways in which you can construct jobs depending on your specific needs and requirements."
"It is very easy and easy to use, and minimal supervision is required to run it."
"It can centralize and support on-premises, hybrid, and cloud environments seamlessly."
"This tool helps us to monitor the job related to SAP modules."
"I hope going forward they will make some changes to the documentation. I hope they will write into the documentation what has changed and what the new names are. For example, some features have a new name. I hope they will make a translation the names in the old version to the names in the newer version."
"For the user interface of version 12.1, I cannot find a lot of utilities and objects from previous versions, making me change my habits. This is not good."
"I would not recommend using Automic's technical support for complex problems."
"The SSH agent is missing in version 12.1. Maybe it would be a good addition to see on the web client of the next version of Atomic."
"The versioning and support for the lifecycle of Automic's developed solution is what we were missing. However, this is coming in version 12.2, so I am looking forward to seeing how it works."
"There is one missing part in the product concerning recurring tasks. You can schedule a recurring task by a context action, and run it as recurrent, but it creates a time container which can be quit and disappears."
"We have some problems with updates where some functions are changed, so you have to check your whole system to see if everything is still running. The update process for us is around two months of testing and one day of updates."
"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."
"Enhancing the user interface would make it more appealing to new users with limited technical knowledge."
"They should be made more cost-effective in comparison to similar software services."
"Due to the abundance of competing automation technologies available on the market, connectivity with any cloud platform can be improved."
"The user interface of Redwood can be improved a bit to make it more user-friendly and interesting."
"Adding machine learning and AI capabilities would enable Redwood to automate more complex business processes and tasks."
"Redwood automation software could be made more user-friendly and intuitive, making chores and automation processes easier for users to complete."
"I have not noted any downsides."
"Enhancing the user interface would make it more appealing and accessible to a wide range of users."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Redwood RunMyJobs is ranked 3rd in Workload Automation with 30 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Redwood RunMyJobs is rated 9.6. 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 Redwood RunMyJobs writes "Simple to use, increases CPU speed, and reduces the cost of machine time". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, whereas Redwood RunMyJobs is most compared with Control-M, Stonebranch, Tidal by Redwood, AutoSys Workload Automation and Fortra's JAMS. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Redwood RunMyJobs 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.
