We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Tidal Automation 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 valued for its strong performance, ability to handle large workloads, and user-friendly implementation. It provides comprehensive control over various systems and products. Tidal Automation is particularly praised for its efficient job scheduler and advanced real-time monitoring features.
Automic could enhance its out-of-box automation sets, language support, functionality, user interface, web-based edition features, file transfer management, pricing, and SaaS deployment. Tidal could benefit from improvements in its graphical user interface, pricing model, cloud/hybrid solution, QA testing, job migration, reporting, artificial intelligence capabilities, integration, and user-friendliness.
Service and Support: Automic Workload Automation's customer service has received varied feedback, with some customers appreciating prompt responses and useful knowledge articles, while others have encountered challenges in contacting the support team. Tidal Automation's customer service is highly regarded for its responsiveness, expertise, and consistent resolution of issues.
Ease of Deployment: Automic's initial setup duration and complexity can differ, lasting anywhere from one to five days based on the project scale and implementation. Tidal Automation's initial setup is described as simple and effortless, necessitating approximately three weeks along with a few servers and a database.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation and Tidal Automation were compared for their setup cost. Users found Automic Workload Automation to be more cost-effective and user-friendly compared to Tidal Automation. They praised Automic for its efficiency in setting up automation processes without incurring excessive expenses.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation is seen as an added cost without clear ROI figures, while Tidal Automation has demonstrated positive ROI through cost savings, enhanced efficiency, and better risk management. Tidal Automation also excels in seamless integration and fulfilling automation needs.
Comparison Results: Tidal Automation emerges as the preferred choice compared to Automic Workload Automation. The setup process for Tidal Automation is described as straightforward and easy, taking approximately three weeks, whereas Automic's setup can take anywhere from one to five days. Users highly appreciate Tidal Automation's job scheduler and single pane of glass interface, which make workload management and monitoring simple.
"We use it in every aspect of our IT operations, and the scalability is very good."
"Unlike other Orchestration or Workload Automation tools, Automic Workload Automation stands out as a versatile single solution capable of handling various use cases such as business process automation, workload automation, service orchestration, and PR automation. There's no need for additional tools to make it compatible with your specific use case. Automic Workload Automation can handle it all without requiring any sideline tools to be installed."
"It saves a lot of time and mistakes, because we used to do a lot of manual work. Since we added automation a little bit over a year now, it has enhanced our daily work."
"Customers save a lot of money when they use this product, because of things like the scheduling tool."
"It is easy to set up and use. The whole system is complete."
"Without automation, it would be nearly impossible to do all the jobs that we are doing."
"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."
"The new release is web-based, so that's a big, big improvement. A lot of our products are going to that platform."
"It saves times due to automation. With some files, we do hundreds a day for a particular vendor. This would be hard to do manually. Also, the speed at which we can do this is excellent."
"The Graphical Views feature is also very good for helping us to understand a job stream. It's great for providing a visual overview of the status of a workflow, especially the Critical Path view. That is one of our favorites."
"With the varied features in the varied adapters provided, we use Tidal Enterprise Scheduler because we want everything to be scheduled in one place. Tidal provides that for us with its tools and varying platforms in our organization. Tidal provides all the connectors to the platforms. This is very useful because we don't want to look for another scheduler for scheduling certain jobs. We don't want to look at those schedules manually between platforms."
"For us, the calendaring system is very robust. Some of the teams have very specific requests for when they need jobs to run. That's been really valuable, because a lot of times, when people run scripts, if they run on a holiday, they're going to fail... A couple of times a month it probably saves us work and the necessity of logging in from home and checking to make sure everything's okay."
"With other tools, you do not have the ability to schedule jobs on their own. You need to create a group and then assign everything to that group. Only then will the job be able to execute. In Tidal, you can schedule a single job and there is no need to create a group. That's what I like the most."
"The first, big thing that we got out of using Tidal Workload Automation was having a centralized view of the status of all of our batch processes across all these systems... We can look into the schedule at any given time and see if things are running on track or if they are falling behind. We can also see if something failed."
"It has been super stable. There are no complaints on stability. We would not be using it if Tidal wasn't stable."
"The job dependency is something that you cannot have in a regular, simple cron job or simple scheduler dependency. The event-driven jobs are core for us, as we really need that. Therefore, we really need Tidal with its ability to run thousands of jobs per day."
"The new UI feels unready. It makes your browsers crash."
"It has a very complicated interface, which could be made to be more user-friendly."
"If you're getting deep into some of these workflows, you may have 20 different windows open and, if you didn't already have that deep understanding of how enterprise orchestration works, it would be very overwhelming to get up to speed on something like that... It needs some way to minimize the amount of windows and get it to where you could have all the information you need available on the screen."
"I would like a good AWI in the next release. The AWI is not fully functional at this time."
"An area for improvement would be SQL performance. While tracing SQL traffic, we noticed a lot of commands that cause contention/locks as well as forced waits. The efficiency of the SQL could be greatly improved (in some cases by simply replacing nested Selects and using NOLOCK hints)."
"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'm not sure what data they use to make time estimates. However, most of the time it is not accurate. It's either way too long or way too short."
"When there's an error or a problem, the automation part of it could be easily programmed to escalate it up to the developers or whoever is going to work on it. We had to home-grow that within the product because third-party products are so expensive."
"The user interface is the place that needs the most work. If and when we find issues with the product, they are usually in that area. If I had to choose, that's where I'd want issues, as opposed to in the engine. But the UI is average. It's a little sluggish at times and there are some bugs in it."
"When we patch to the next version, there is often a little thing that breaks. It has rarely been a big deal, but I always seem to have to follow up on one tiny issue. It would help if they had some better QA testing of their patches."
"The product’s UI is outdated. They should work on this particular area."
"The drill-down into details using the Graphical Views feature is a bit difficult and not that helpful. If you want to go into the details, you have to go to the Job Activity. Graphical Views is not that easy for getting that kind of information."
"It takes a lot of time to learn the product. I have admins and developers who are working on the products for the last three to four years and still don't know all the functionalities. Tidal has really great things about it, but people are focused on their day-to-day job and the solution is not intuitive."
"One area for improvement is the command-line interface and the API to bulk-load jobs. It's a little bit kludgy, but we still manage without it. They're working on it and it's getting better all the time. In addition, the documentation for their API for creating jobs needs to be updated. It's a bit of a learning curve."
"The software's performance and scalability could be improved, particularly when dealing with large-scale workloads or complex business processes."
"The job failure alerts can be updated with more details for better troubleshooting."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Tidal by Redwood is ranked 2nd in Workload Automation with 37 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Tidal by Redwood is rated 9.0. 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 Tidal by Redwood writes "Great visibility with a single pane of glass and a low learning curve". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and Automic Automation Intelligence, whereas Tidal by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs and Fortra's JAMS. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Tidal by Redwood 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.
