Stonebranch Universal Automation Center Previous Solutions

Brian
Sr. System Programmer at a retailer with 1,001-5,000 employees
The Universal Controller is what I'm running. I like it for web interface. There were four or five products we were reviewing. We came from an ESP shop but we didn't like their web interface. We were leaning toward a web interface and this was the only tool that had it. I believe a couple of them are close, but we didn't like their features. We liked this one better. We have the Controller on our own server, inside the company. I have read some of the cloud stuff and we have other products going in that direction, but I haven't been asked to go that way. We had an elective in 2013 to get off the mainframe, so we jumped to get going with a different scheduling tool but, guess what, we're still on the mainframe. View full review »
Earl Diem
Manager Performance and Automation Engineering at PSCU Financial Services
We had Cisco Tidal going before Stonebranch. It was an older product which was being retired. Cisco's core competency is not automation, it's networking. The product was somewhat clunky and difficult to work with. Stonebranch is a lot easier to work with. We made the decision to do a PoC and find a different scheduler and selected Stonebranch. View full review »
SeniorTe1d8f
Senior Technical Analyst at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
We have many other solutions. I don't think I can mention those solutions as we do have NDAs with all our vendors on that side of the house. View full review »
Find out what your peers are saying about Stonebranch, BMC, IBM and others in Workload Automation. Updated: August 2019.
365,820 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Frank Burkhardt
Application and Database Administrator at Blue Bird Corporation
This would be the first solution of its type that we have used. View full review »
Mike Booher
Systems Programmer II at a insurance company with 501-1,000 employees
We used a product from ASG. It was their Beta 42 solution. It's something that they purchased and it was pretty old. It ran on the mainframe. It just didn't give us the flexibility we needed to do enterprise-wide and to be able to integrate server tasks or open-systems tasks with the mainframe. Stonebranch replaced our old, mainframe scheduler, and we got much more flexibility in the new product, compared to the old product. Our file transfer processes are much more resilient. And one of the biggest benefits is that when a job fails it sends an email to us and alerts us about the failure. In addition, it sends it to our ticketing system and it opens up a problem ticket automatically. View full review »
Doug Perseghetti
Consulting Systems Engineer at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
We are still also using the IBM scheduler. But we completely switched off of the IBM agents to Stonebranch agents. So Stonebranch replaced the existing legacy system as far as the agents go. That went great. It was a very affordable solution, works like a champ, so it's good. We're still using the mainframe scheduler, but we're looking at phasing that out over this next year. View full review »
reviewer952863
Application Manager at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
We used: * IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler * Redwood CPS for scheduling SAP tasks * Redwood Cronacle * Opalis, also * AT scheduling on Windows, and * Crontab scheduling. We switched to UAC because we did not want all the other schedulers and corresponding teams. It is also more cost-efficient. View full review »
reviewer948096
User at a insurance company with 501-1,000 employees
CA7/CA11 - switched due to cost. View full review »
reviewer948099
User at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
reviewer958350
User
At other organizations, I have used CA Unicenter. It was OK, but on working with UAC, I prefer this tool. View full review »
reviewer958347
BI - BO Data Services Architect with 1,001-5,000 employees
We didn't have one enterprise scheduling to automation tool before Stonebranch. With Stonebranch, we are able to bring all enterprise automation to once place. View full review »
reviewer948108
User at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Charvi Sharma
Technology Analyst at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
No, I did not. View full review »
dwalin
DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees
previous scheduler was TWS 8.5. More expensive, less stable, less capable View full review »
reviewer948087
User at a financial services firm
Our own implementation. View full review »
reviewer958341
Managing Director at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
We had a number of schedulers over the years, leading the conversion discussion is usually surrounding vendor support as well as reliability issues. View full review »
reviewer948102
User at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
No, I did not use any other schedulers. View full review »
Find out what your peers are saying about Stonebranch, BMC, IBM and others in Workload Automation. Updated: August 2019.
365,820 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Sign Up with Email