We performed a comparison between OpCon 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: OpCon is praised for its flexibility, integration capabilities, self-service options, reduced human error, intuitive graphical user interface, database functionality, deployment concept, testing environment, on-demand access, MAS assistance, reliability, and strong automation capabilities. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is lauded for its performance, excellent graphical representation, intuitive solution, regular upgrades, job dependencies, rerun function, GUI, task monitor, stability, scalability, and helpful technical support.
OpCon could enhance its web-based interface and Solution Manager while upgrading to newer versions may be complicated. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center would benefit from cloud availability and improved analytics capabilities.
Service and Support: OpCon's customer service receives positive feedback for providing timely solutions and a strong dedication to effective resolutions. Stonebranch's support is highly regarded for its expertise, efficiency, and consistent availability to assist customers.
Ease of Deployment: OpCon's initial setup requires collaboration with SMA Technologies and training, however, with the help of SMA consultants, it is considered smooth. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center's setup is generally easy, however, the complexity of the infrastructure may pose some challenges.
Pricing: OpCon has a high initial cost and is intricate to set up, necessitating a learning curve. Nevertheless, it is viewed as a valuable and high-quality product. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is comparatively less expensive, making it a favored option for businesses.
ROI: OpCon has proven to be highly effective in generating return on investment through its task automation capabilities, time-saving features, and error reduction. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center has demonstrated significant cost savings of 40-50% when compared to previous tools.
Comparison Results: OpCon is the preferred choice when compared to Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. OpCon is highly praised for its flexibility, integration capabilities, self-service feature, graphical user interface, and reliability. Users appreciate the ability to automate tasks according to their specific needs, reducing human error.
"My favorite feature is the dashboard feature, which shows jobs that are running, and completed, any failures, and provides dashboard reporting."
"File Watcher can run jobs when files are made available in a folder."
"OpCon has also reduced our data processing times because of the way you can build out workflows. It can run things in sequence. It's not restricted to a linear process, so you can run multiple jobs at once, allowing for multi-threaded jobs."
"The end code response allows us to evaluate how a process finished, set the termination/end code appropriately, and then trigger further processing based on how it ended."
"It seems like it would scale well."
"We're also starting to use its Self Service and Solution Manager. My team in the data center and some of the development team use the Self Service. Developers are using the Self Service for upon-request jobs for their testing. They used to have to go through us to schedule testing and now they can just go on and kick it off all they want. They have also really appreciated that they have access to view and/or submit jobs."
"I have been pleased with the support that we can get from the European partners. I think they are very good. All the time, when we have a question, they have an answer. It is very reassuring to have that support every day. Then, you can concentrate on your job and OpCon is just there to work. For us, it's perfect."
"The greatness of it is the flexibility of the scheduling and the integration of all platforms and processes. We have integrated it with everything from AIX to Microsoft Servers; with pretty much anything that we can."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I love the Universal Controller. It's been great for us. We host it on-premise... It's High Availability, meaning there's failover from one server to the other if one goes down."
"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."
"I like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"The only downside to OpCon is that its features can be complicated and really must be taught. Most of our users don't have training beyond the free Basic Training that SMA provides, so for fresh eyes, it is kind of difficult to understand some of the language used."
"I would like to see OpCon being accessible using a mobile app."
"What can get complicated is if you're doing anything more than just the built-in jobs. If you're using the more advanced features, troubleshooting becomes extremely complicated."
"Of course they have a RESTful API within OpCon, but they have that new web services agent that we installed because we have some SOAP APIs and we had to interact with SMA to get things running. Our developers did do some tweaks, but we have now been able to get some test jobs running, and understand how the workflow goes back and forth."
"The ability to retrieve information from logs in variables to display relevant information would be helpful."
"I have noticed lately that [tech support's] first answers tend to be, "Let's upgrade it to the latest and greatest first," without looking into anything. The last couple of times I've logged a ticket that's been the response, which is a little frustrating. We're not big on just upgrading on a whim. We do full testing."
"I don't really think anything needs to be improved within the functionality. The only struggle I had, when I first started using it, is that it depends a lot on the command line and I didn't have that experience. So more built-in, basic commands or more education on commands would be good."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"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."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"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."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"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."
OpCon is ranked 9th in Workload Automation with 56 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. OpCon is rated 9.2, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of OpCon writes "Gives us the ability to schedule dependent jobs across different mainframes". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". OpCon is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Automic Workload Automation and UiPath, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and IBM Workload Automation. See our OpCon 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.
