We performed a comparison between AutoSys Workload Automation and IBM Workload Automation 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 recommended for its scalability, ease of use, speed, and availability. Users appreciate its excellent job arrangement, task triggering, real-time batch processing view, software process integration, and user-friendly interface. The file transfer protocol and file watcher features are also praised. IBM Workload Automation is known for its ability to incorporate user-requested features, trigger jobs in multiple nodes, and conveniently track batch applications.
AutoSys Workload Automation users have expressed a need for integration with cloud services, simplified reporting and comparison of job performance, customizable reporting features and alerts, smoother migrations, enhanced handling of file transfer jobs, and the ability to monitor and manage workload windows. IBM Workload Automation users have encountered performance problems, navigation difficulties, challenges with daily schedule refreshes, complex simulation, stability and reporting visibility enhancements, and alignment with new technologies.
Service and Support: Users have positive feedback about the customer service of AutoSys Workload Automation, describing it as excellent, beneficial, and quick to respond. IBM Workload Automation also offers exceptional technical support, which customers depend on for problems that are out of their control. Nonetheless, there may be difficulties in pinpointing the origin of specific issues.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for AutoSys Workload Automation is considered to be simple, straightforward, and quick, while the setup for IBM Workload Automation can be difficult for those who are unfamiliar with IBM tools.
Pricing: The setup cost for AutoSys Workload Automation involves a yearly subscription, an annual license, and a one-time license for the server setup. The pricing for IBM Workload Automation is dependent on the customer's contract and can fluctuate depending on the number of agents installed.
ROI: The effectiveness of AutoSys Workload Automation in terms of ROI is influenced by factors such as the size of the organization, the complexity of the workload, and the efficiency of its implementation. IBM Workload Automation focuses on enhancing efficiency, minimizing expenses, and boosting productivity.
Comparison Results: AutoSys Workload Automation is the preferred choice compared to IBM Workload Automation. Users appreciate AutoSys for its easy setup process, scalability, ease of use, speed, and availability. It offers a user-friendly interface, file transfer protocol, and file watcher features.
"It streamlines processing really well, so we're able to cut down on our processing times."
"AutoSys Workload Automation is a stable solution."
"This solution has made my clients' workplaces a lot less labor-intensive."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the functions are easy to use."
"CA Workload Automation AutoSys Edition is one of the most powerful schedulers that you have on the open systems, or going between Window servers; to be able to schedule and take advantage of the different powers that the automation has with it."
"Automation of patch process."
"The capabilities of the product to schedule on multiple platforms, multiple operating systems."
"It is very valuable for us when we are trying to arrange or orchestrate jobs into a system. It is helpful for triggering jobs for a scheduled task."
"The DWC, when configured correctly, is a great GUI tool to provide Self-Service Scheduling capabilities to the user community."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The most important feature is the creation of folders. It's a really great feature because you can organize the process with naming conventions."
"The whole product is valuable because it is a tool for batch automation."
"Provides a robust, full spectrum enterprise-wide WLA platform."
"The project we worked on involved the running of nearly 24,000 job instances in a single day, so I would say that the solution is stable."
"Jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes."
"Jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes."
"The solution could improve by having support for container environments."
"I would like to see the Service Orchestrator, a B2B product, and maybe a process audit."
"We see improvement possibilities in the processing provision of predefined evaluations or individual objects, or in the Self Service portal, which can be used by any user to monitor objects or start objects."
"We had a few issues, however, the issues were more on the infrastructure rather than with the application itself."
"We are trying to see if we can use this from a cloud perspective with AWS, Azure, and other clouds, but it seems that there is no cloud integration in this product. We would like to see cloud integration. We are very pleased with this solution, but we are moving our application to the cloud, and we found out that it doesn't support any cloud features. So, we are trying to find a replacement."
"The lack of documentation, that is an issue. When we do need to bring it down for maintenance, it is always a scary moment for us because we have never had it crash."
"The graphical interface can be improved."
"I am not sure whether it is our limitation or a tool limitation because we haven't yet explored it, but whenever we look for different types of reporting, we have some limitations in getting those. It could be because of the way we have set it up internally in our enterprise, but it would be helpful if we can customize the reporting features and some of the alerts that can go out. When we connect enterprise systems, each one looks for a different use case, and if we can get different types of reporting, it will be helpful."
"The performance of the previous versions could be better."
"The configuration of IBM Workload Automation has some challenges. We have a difficult time customizing it, but it is similar to other solutions."
"It is missing some features and can improve in areas where the competition is somewhat better like linking job dependencies."
"Scalability-wise, it can be a little bit challenging."
"This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly."
"The schedule refreshes daily and that's a challenge for us."
"Slow down on the releases a bit. I fully understand that IWA functionality is increasing at an amazing rate, but trying to keep up with the upgrades is rough."
"It should support other schedulers that aren't IBM products."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while IBM Workload Automation is ranked 13th in Workload Automation with 28 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while IBM Workload Automation is rated 8.2. 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 IBM Workload Automation writes "With an easy setup phase in place, agent-based installation can be done in minutes". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Stonebranch, Automic Workload Automation and CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas IBM Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, HCL Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Tidal by Redwood and CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence. See our AutoSys Workload Automation vs. IBM Workload Automation 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.
