We performed a comparison between AutoSys 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: AutoSys Workload Automation is highly regarded for its ability to handle large workloads, user-friendly interface, efficient processing, and constant accessibility. It stands out in organizing tasks, initiating actions, and promptly processing batches of data. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is commended for its exceptional performance, visually appealing representations, and capability to establish job interdependencies. It provides regular updates and a reliable, adaptable solution.
AutoSys Workload Automation could improve its integration with cloud services, reporting and comparison of job performance, customization of reporting features and alerts, handling file transfer jobs, monitoring capabilities, advanced features and functionalities, and workload window management. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could benefit from being cloud-based, enhancing analytics, improving task monitor management, developing a mobile app for easier monitoring and calculation of job hours, and collaborating with the vendor for future releases.
Service and Support: Users have expressed high satisfaction with the customer service and support provided by Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. However, there is no specific mention of the customer service of AutoSys Workload Automation.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for AutoSys Workload Automation is praised for being simple, direct, and efficient, typically requiring no more than 10 minutes. The initial setup for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is considered average in terms of ease, with challenges arising from the intricate infrastructure.
Pricing: AutoSys Workload Automation requires a yearly subscription and an annual license for setup. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is regarded as more affordable than its rivals, receiving positive pricing ratings and offering comparable pricing to AutoSys.
ROI: AutoSys Workload Automation lacks details on ROI, whereas Stonebranch Universal Automation Center has demonstrated significant cost reductions of around 40% to 50% compared to previous tools for some users.
Comparison Results: AutoSys Workload Automation receives positive feedback for its straightforward setup, ability to handle growing workloads, user-friendly interface, efficient performance, and consistent availability. Users appreciate its simplicity, stability, and scalability. AutoSys offers advanced features and functionalities.
"Integration with multiple services and applications across the enterprise."
"This solution has made my clients' workplaces a lot less labor-intensive."
"To me, what's most valuable in AutoSys Workload Automation is its robustness and quickness. The tool can trigger jobs within a few milliseconds, and it can handle large volumes of jobs."
"Easy configuration and integration with SAP."
"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."
"It's very easy to work with. The learning curve is not that steep."
"The most valuable aspects of AutoSys Workload Automation are its performance, scalability, and ease of getting started for new users."
"Automation of patch process."
"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."
"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."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
"The ability to monitor tasks that are on the open-system side as well as our mainframe side gives us a one-window view of all our processes."
"Stonebranch performs well, and the graphical representation is excellent. Overall, it requires more technical effort from our teams, but the solution is intuitive, so anybody can use it."
"The Universal Agent is the most valuable feature. Being agent-based and being able to go across multiple technology stacks, which is what our workflows do, Stonebranch gives us the ability to bridge those disparate technologies. It enables us to remove the dependency-gap with the agent so we know the status of the workflow at each step."
"The most valuable feature is the reliability of the agents, because we need them accessible and we need to run stuff. The agent technology and compatibility are top-notch."
"I like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"The WCC could be improved."
"AutoSys Workload Automation could improve the integration."
"Ease of implementation for upgrades."
"Quick search feature and job analysis could be improved."
"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."
"There is a difference between a web interface and the thick client interface. We particularly like a thick client interface, and it has gone away."
"More benefits with the agent upgrades, and that's about it. Other than that we have no complaints with it. It's been awesome."
"They could do better supporting it. They have too many of the same type of products, so sometimes it doesn't get as much attention as it should."
"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."
"The Universal Controller is decent for the money it costs... It needs some work to have full features, compared to other products that are out there, specifically IBM's Workload Scheduler."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"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."
"There is a component called the OMS, which is the message broker. We rely on infrastructure, resiliency, and availability for that piece. If that could change to be highly available just as a software component, so that we don't have to provide the high-available storage, etc. for it, that would be a plus. It would just be cheaper to run."
"It would be ideal if they had the exact same features as the CA Workload Automation DE series. It would be helpful to have calendaring options."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"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."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. 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 Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Automic Workload Automation and CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with Control-M, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, IBM Workload Automation and VisualCron. See our AutoSys 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.
