We performed a comparison between AutoSys Workload Automation and OpCon based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AutoSys Workload Automation is highly regarded for its ability to handle large workloads, its user-friendly interface, efficient performance, and constant availability. It excels in organizing tasks and initiating them, providing a live view of batch processing, and seamlessly integrating with other software processes. OpCon shines in its adaptability, innovative scheduling solutions, self-service capabilities, and automation-driven reduction in human mistakes. It offers a visually appealing interface, database functionality, and the option to create a dedicated testing environment.
AutoSys needs to enhance its integration with cloud services, reporting capabilities, Linux environment compatibility, migration ease, file transfer job handling, monitoring capabilities, advanced features, workflow management, and workload window management. OpCon could benefit from improvements in its web-based interface, upgrade process, documentation, programming and configuration complexity, mobile app availability, failover functionality, licensing, training for support staff, UI functionality, self-service capabilities, custom job subtypes, and mainframe support.
Service and Support: AutoSys Workload Automation's customer service is highly praised for being very good, helpful, and responsive. OpCon's customer service is described as great, timely, and helpful. However, there have been instances where OpCon provided solutions that were not relevant to customers' problems.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for AutoSys Workload Automation is simple, direct, and fairly fast, typically completed in under 10 minutes. OpCon's initial setup can be intricate, although SMA consultants can help simplify its management.
Pricing: AutoSys Workload Automation has a setup cost that involves a yearly subscription and an annual license, along with separate costs for agents and server setup. OpCon offers fair pricing and licensing with a tiered pricing model. However, some customers have faced higher licensing costs and encountered setup issues with OpCon.
ROI: AutoSys offers advantages such as time and cost savings, improved reliability, scalability, and compliance. OpCon users have reported significant return on investment, including time savings, error reduction, increased productivity, and the elimination of full-time operators.
Comparison Results: AutoSys Workload Automation is the preferred choice when compared to OpCon. Users praise AutoSys for its simple and straightforward setup, scalability, user-friendly interface, speed, and availability. They appreciate features such as file transfer protocol and file watcher.
"We use CA Workload Automation AE r11.3.6 to automate enterprise-wide scheduling and file transfers using an FTP plugin."
"It allows you to automate tasks, and reduce headcount, prevent errors, self-heal."
"Automic Automation Engine provides us the ability to map logic using a scripting language."
"The solution has been stable."
"It has improved my organization by automating IT applications."
"Running anything in crontab, you need to put a lot of logic into it to make it work. With this product, you don't have to worry about it. You have the schedule object where you put all the dates or holidays in it, and it does it for you."
"We run millions of jobs through it every day using it for financial transactions, banking, credit cards, PeopleSoft, payroll, etc."
"AutoSys Workload Automation is a stable solution."
"It allows us to organize everything into a process flow throughout the day for our different tasks that we have to run. So, it keeps everything organized. It is easy to monitor and adjust, if we need to."
"We particularly like the fact that it's graphical because it is Windows-based. Before, we were text-based on the mainframe. You can also produce flow charts. Because it's point-and-click, its ease of use is very nice."
"The ability to chain jobs together allows us to create complex interdependencies between our jobs, and the integration into our core system is important because it allows us, through an automated system, to do a huge number of things that used to be done manually."
"The core system is the most valuable part: being able to view the processes that we've never really been able to view as a whole before. That is super-helpful, as is being alerted when issues arise."
"The solution has streamlined operations. We have written custom jobs to do particular things, but OpCon is definitely the one that manages running them at particular times. Often times, those jobs have to run after hours. So while we still develop and spend time and man-hours writing code, once it's done, OpCon is running that in the afternoons or evenings. This is usually done during off hours when a person would normally be required to be here and do it. Instead, OpCon is available, consistent, reliable and easy to get things in and working quickly once we develop and get them working. OpCon takes care of the entire process, including notifications that we define if something were to happen so we know what to do next. Again, it's simplifies the entire process."
"There's also a self-service solution manager... that allows us to enable staff to run complex automation tasks by clicking a button and entering some information. They don't have to have access to the OpCon environment to kick off those kinds of events."
"It's very scalable. Right now we're barely scratching the surface of what it can do. I've looked at Symitar's instance of OpCon and they're running something like 13,000 jobs a day with all the clients that they have. So it can go from small use cases like ours to enterprise-level."
"One of the advantages of OpCon is the ability to use the API and web services. We couldn't do that with our previous solution. We have been able to change our procedure for ticketing. When a job is down, we can immediately create a ticket from OpCon in our ticketing solution, which is ServiceNow, using the web services."
"The WCC could be improved."
"It lacks support and integration with cloud computing platforms."
"Ease of implementation for upgrades."
"I am looking forward to more of their dashboard features. I think it would be very valuable for us to have dashboard features that could be delivered to our customers in the form of a URL, and they could refresh that URL whenever they wanted to get up to date performance metrics out of our systems."
"The visibility and control features are somewhat limited."
"Reduce the number of operational files. This would make the job of a system programmer supporting ESP easier."
"I would like to see the Service Orchestrator, a B2B product, and maybe a process audit."
"In terms of what should be in the next release, I want integration and AI and so on. I'd like easy reporting where you can compare information, for example, "that job normally takes three minutes and last time it took six minutes or 10 minutes." Then you can get the information to the engineer of which job is taking more time than normal - understanding strange behavior compared to the baseline."
"It is a complex product to use. Programming the schedules is complex. It does require training from OpCon... I would like to see some online training, some videos. When I bring in a new employee... it would be nice if there was some basic information for her to look at to understand this program. Even for my systems administrator, it would be helpful if there were tips and tricks available."
"I'd like to see the product include a view where you can see everything about a specific job on a single screen."
"Enterprise Manager is a little clunky which I know they're addressing in the solution's manager."
"The learning curve could be shorter. The problem is that it's difficult to simplify a product without taking away functionality. I would love to see OpCon become a little easier to grasp. However, my concern is that making things easier isn't always better for the product. If they can keep the integrity of the product while making it easier to learn, that would be an area of improvement."
"I would like to have an interface with PowerShell. PowerShell has a lot of functionality. We use it a lot because we're a Windows shop. Having a built-in tool or interface with PowerShell would go a long way."
"Some additional logging-information reporting would also help. They have all the information there but you still have to search around and look back. It's not right there for you, where you click and can get the reporting. You have to know the system and do some additional searches. So reporting is another area that they can build on by simplifying it."
"At first, it's a little clunky, but once you learn it, it actually is very simple. You have to get over that initial learning hump."
"The UI refresh rate is really bad and needs improvement."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while OpCon is ranked 9th in Workload Automation with 56 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while OpCon is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpCon writes "Gives us the ability to schedule dependent jobs across different mainframes". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Stonebranch and ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas OpCon is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Automic Workload Automation, UiPath and Tidal by Redwood. See our AutoSys Workload Automation vs. OpCon 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.
