We performed a comparison between Automic 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: Automic Workload Automation is highly appreciated for its strong and flexible capability, scalability, and straightforward setup process. It provides extensive control over various operating systems and products, accompanied by pre-designed templates and convenient access through web browsers. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center stands out in terms of efficiency, visually appealing graphical representation, and the capability to establish dependencies between different tasks. It offers an intuitive solution, regularly enhances its software, and provides valuable technical support.
Automic Workload Automation has room for improvement in terms of industry standardization, plug-and-play automation processes, language support, functionality, user interface, web-based edition, manage file transfer area, and pricing. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could enhance its offerings by providing cloud deployment, improving analytics, offering a mobile app for task monitoring, and collaborating with the vendor for future releases.
Service and Support: The customer service for Automic Workload Automation has garnered varying feedback, as some customers encountered challenges when trying to contact the support team. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is widely commended for its exceptional and consistently accessible technical support.
Ease of Deployment: The setup for Automic Workload Automation can take anywhere from one to five days, depending on the project size. The setup for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is considered average in terms of ease, with the deployment process lasting approximately six months. Implementation can take one to two years.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a high setup cost. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is more affordable compared to its rivals, making it a favored option among businesses.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation did not offer specific ROI figures, but the user opted not to renew the license in order to reduce costs. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center led to a cost reduction.
Comparison Results: Automic Workload Automation is favored over Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. Users appreciate Automic's strength, scalability, and ease of implementation, as well as its extensive features and architecture. Automic is considered user-friendly with a simple interface.
"We use it in every aspect of our IT operations, and the scalability is very good."
"Our customers appreciate it mostly because it takes a lot of effort away from them."
"I have found new methods for converting scripts from Dollar U to ONE Automation. For example, I take the dynamic library from Dollar U and put it in the dynamic binary library in ONE Automation. This enables us to use Dollar U scripts in ONE Automation."
"We are able to control and change our processes when necessary."
"It has greatly increased our efficiencies and productivity, and reduced the amount of human interaction required."
"You can create very fine, granular workflows with a lot of possibilities. It gives you the possibility to do things in many ways."
"You gain a lot of time and effort because you can automatize many things. Repetitive tasks costs us, so we can reduce them to zero effort and minimal costs by using the product."
"As far as our schedules, if we have problems, we can create our own process in the automation, which is good."
"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."
"I like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
"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 tasks are incredibly capable, and as long as you name them with a nice, uniform naming convention, they are very useful. You can create some interesting workflows through various machines, or you can just have it kick off single tasks. All in all, I really like the Universal Task. You can do some mutually exclusive stuff, such as an "A not B" kind of thing. It has a lot of capabilities behind the scenes."
"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"
"It seems still very technical to get the full features out... Once you get to some of the leadership levels, such as myself, you don't have time to go digging into it. It would be nice to have some additional performance features such as reporting, analytics."
"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."
"The new user interface AWI could improve. It is quite easy to use and work around, but it has lost some of the functionality that we used to have in our Vim client user interface."
"I am heading up the AWI. I desperately miss the possibility to show my read-only users on the Explorer side only their folders, not all the folders."
"This solution's out-of-box automation sets could be improved. They could be industry standardized out-of-box, or even runbook automation processes could be useful—just some plug-and-play automation processes out-of-box. It has many integration capabilities, from APIs to databases, but if the customer sees some out-of-box automation processes in it, it could be useful."
"When you want to use the entirety of Automic, it is heavy."
"Our users are used to the flatline of the UC4. When we introduced the AVI, they are not interested nor motivated to use it."
"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."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"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 can't handle negative written codes."
"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."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"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."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. 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 Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and SaltStack, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and AppWorx Workload Automation. See our Automic 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.
