We performed a comparison between Automic 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: Automic Workload Automation is highly regarded for its strength, scalability, and straightforward setup. Rocket Zena receives acclaim for its user-friendliness, intuitive interface, and the inclusion of diagrams. Automic excels in managing various operating systems and products, whereas Zena streamlines processes and ensures a pleasant user experience.
Automic Workload Automation has room for improvement in industry standardization, plug-and-play automation processes, language support, user interface, web-based edition, file transfer capabilities, pricing, and support. Rocket Zena requires enhancements in visibility, agent monitoring, process limitations, error alerts, UI loading time, intuitive UI, RPM packages, task stacking, documentation, accessibility, server communication, and agent functionality.
Service and Support: Automic Workload Automation has a varied reputation for customer service. Some customers appreciate the prompt responses and informative articles, while others struggle to reach the support team. The duration for issue resolution is also a concern. Rocket Zena's customer service garners praise for its knowledgeable and responsive technical support. However, acquiring higher-level support may require more time.
Ease of Deployment: Automic Workload Automation has a relatively quick and efficient initial setup that can be completed by a small team in a matter of days. Rocket Zena's setup process can take longer, ranging from a day to two weeks, and involves understanding various components.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a high setup cost. Rocket Zena is seen as cost-effective and affordable, making it a suitable choice for small companies.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation did not offer precise ROI figures and was not renewed due to cost-saving efforts. Rocket Zena has resulted in notable time savings, and enhanced accuracy, and is deemed an indispensable tool with a favorable return on investment.
Comparison Results: Rocket Zena is the preferred choice when compared to Automic Workload Automation. Users appreciate its ease of use, intuitive interface, and simplified processes. They find it to be user-friendly, especially in comparison to similar products. Rocket Zena also offers containerized deployment with Docker, cross-platform job scheduling, and a web-based client, making it more usable.
"The initial setup was quite simple because they have a manual which tells you in a simple way of how to install it step-by-step."
"It will increase all delivery due to an impact on efficiency, in terms of time and faster resources."
"It reduces operational costs and increases quality."
"Customers save a lot of money when they use this product, because of things like the scheduling tool."
"It integrates well with the CICD pipeline."
"It is an easy product to use, and we use it for end-to-end process automation."
"The most valuable feature is the one for SAP batch processing... There are certain other mid-level workload automation tools which can handle the OS level, but SAP is something which is really very critical. Automic stands out from the ordinary tools because handling SAP processes is absolutely easy with it."
"Stability has been great. My team, we call ourselves "the invisibles" because things run so well that sometimes you almost feel like you have to try to break something to actually get acknowledged."
"I like the whole product, but specifically, I like the license part. It's very easy to acquire a license for this product."
"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 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."
"The most valuable feature is the FTP file transfer."
"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 have used other tools with similar capabilities; it's the ease of use."
"A little less button clicking, in the navigation of the tool itself would also help. There is a lot out there, and I understand that's what keeps the tool robust. It keeps our options open, but it's a bit click-y sometimes. To get where you need to go, you have to go through 10 levels."
"In talking with other customers as well, they would like to see a few enhancements done where you can pull in outside data sources to get a cumulative view from one centralized place."
"Our area with the CA solution for DR is not really concerning directly to Automic, but to all of the DevOps, a word which is something that everybody is trying to touch on today in their daily business. There is also some gap that's a little bit hard to understand or to implement because not all the organizations are the same. When you are adopting DevOps, you may need to be more flexible in your processes."
"We would like to see more dashboarding into the product, maybe an embedded Java API which we would be able to load on our own."
"It is a bit of a problem, because they like to do email ping-pong via their web page. Sometimes, it would be much easier if someone would call you on the phone."
"Documentation is not great. It was previously much better."
"We would also like improved SLR monitoring. There are SLR objects, but I can't define an SLR object plus one, or end days. I can only do it for one day. As we are time shifting to another day, it is not possible. This should be improved."
"I would like to see features from "Prompt" sets in read Masks."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Another one that is probably a little bit bigger for me is that when there is an issue or there's an error, it writes on a different screen. I have to find the actual process name and go to a different screen to view the alert that got generated. On that screen, everyone's processes, not just the processes of the folks in my department, are thrown. It takes me a while to find the actual error so that I could go in there and look at the alert. It could be because of the way it was set up, but at least for me, it isn't too intuitive."
"The UI is not intuitive, and it would be nice if there was a web interface."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like the user experience to be improved. The user interface should be more appealing to gen-z."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Rocket Zena is ranked 12th in Workload Automation with 9 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Rocket Zena is rated 8.4. 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 Rocket Zena writes "A continuously evolving, stable solution, with responsive support". 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 Rocket Zena is most compared with Control-M, Rocket Zeke, IBM Workload Automation, AutoSys Workload Automation and ActiveBatch by Redwood. See our Automic 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.
