We performed a comparison between CA Workload Automation iDash [EOL] and Stonebranch based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC, Tidal Software by Redwood, Redwood Software and others in Workload Automation."The stability of the solution is good. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches and we haven't had any crashes that I can recall."
"The solution is easy to manipulate and has good performance."
"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 interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"I like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"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"
"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."
"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."
"We have difficulties manipulating the agent for Windows."
"The technical support could be improved by removing delays in response times. They should be able to get back to clients faster."
"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 can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"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."
"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."
"There is room for improvement with its connectivity with the Microsoft SRS system. It is very weak. They keep telling us it works with it, and technically it does, but it does not provide a lot of visibility. We have lost a lot of visibility migrating to Stonebranch, compared with just running tasks on the SRS server. That's really about the only thing that is a sore point for us."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
Earn 20 points
CA Workload Automation iDash [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Workload Automation while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. CA Workload Automation iDash [EOL] is rated 8.0, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of CA Workload Automation iDash [EOL] writes "An easy initial setup with scalability capabilities and good stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". CA Workload Automation iDash [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and IBM Workload Automation.
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.
