ActiveBatch by Redwood vs Stonebranch comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 12, 2023
 

Categories and Ranking

ActiveBatch by Redwood
Ranking in Workload Automation
4th
Average Rating
9.2
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (7th), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (5th)
Stonebranch
Ranking in Workload Automation
16th
Average Rating
8.8
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2024, in the Workload Automation category, the mindshare of ActiveBatch by Redwood is 2.6%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Stonebranch is 5.8%, up from 4.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Workload Automation
Unique Categories:
Process Automation
0.6%
Managed File Transfer (MFT)
1.9%
No other categories found
 

Featured Reviews

SN
Sep 6, 2023
Helps with resource allocation, streamlines complex workflows, and offers built-in templates
ActiveBatch Workload Automation enables us to automate and manage a wide range of business processes.  It helps in automating complex workflows that may involve multiple tasks. The platform provides a smooth integration between various other systems, applications, and their databases.  It is best…
Sushil-Singh - PeerSpot reviewer
Nov 30, 2023
Allows you to schedule jobs on applications like Informatica and SAP
Two people are using this solution in my company. It's deployed on a private cloud It improved the batch cycles in background and helping everyone to receive the files and reports on time without miss and client is happy from this tool without much escalations, issue it is working fine and…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Since I started using this product, I have been able to easily track everything as it mainly monitors, alerts, and looks after all the services - even across platform scheduling - which has helped me immensely."
"What ActiveBatch allows you to do is develop a more efficient process. It gave me visibility into all my jobs so I could choose which jobs to run in parallel. This is much easier than when I have to try to do it through cron for Windows XP, where you really can't do things in parallel and know what is going on."
"ActiveBatch has reduced work by providing automated workflows across several different applications."
"Approximately ~20 hours of manual effort have been reduced to ~5 hours with the help of ActiveBatch."
"For developers, it is easy to orchestrate the workflows and the integration has been very easy."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the versatility of the prebuilt jobs."
"As far as centralization goes it's nice because we can see all these processes that are tied to this larger process. The commissions, FTP processing, the reporting, the file moves to the business users — all that is right there. It's very easy to read. It's easy to tie it together, visually, and see where each of these steps fits into the bigger picture."
"The product offers a centralized platform for managing activities across many environments, applications, etc."
"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 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."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"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 support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
 

Cons

"Some of the advanced features in the user interface are a bit confusing even after referring to the documents."
"Setting up the software was hard."
"The reporting needs improvement. There is a real need for the ability to generate audit reports on the fly. It needs to be a lot easier than what I can do right now. This is a major item for me."
"Whenever there is an overload, we are seeing crashes happening."
"The interface is not that user-friendly and is a little tough to navigate."
"It could be easier to provide dashboards on how many jobs are running at the same time; more monitoring."
"Any product is going to have some room for improvement, no matter what. I see the company has already ventured into AWS and they're constantly trying to improve the managed file transfer which they have recently improvised. I think they bought a software called JSCAPE and they're trying to improve it, which is good. I am not sure if JSCAPE would be part of the base product but currently, you have to buy a separate license for it, which doesn't make sense. If it was Microsoft, ServiceNow, or integrating with other software vendors, I would understand but JSCAPE is now in-house and I'm not sure if they can justify having a separate license for JSCAPE. I would probably expect them to be packaging JSCAPE into the base product. They did switch over from a perpetual license model to a subscription model, which hurt the company a little bit. Nobody is offering the perpetual model anymore. As long as the transition is fair for both the companies, I think it should be fine and not burn us out."
"The documentation is very limited, and it can be improved."
"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."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I like ActiveBatch Workload Automation's licensing model because they're not holding you down on an agentless model or agent model, where every server needs to have an agent. That's the main selling point of the solution and I hope they stay that way."
"The pricing was fair. There are additional costs for the plugins. We have the standard licensing fees for different pieces, then we have the plugins which were add-ons. However, we expected that."
"The price was fairly in line with other automation tools. I don't think it's exorbitantly expensive, relatively speaking."
"I don't think we've ever had a problem with the pricing or licensing. Even the maintenance fees are very much in line. They are not excessive. I think for the support that you get, you get a good value for your money. It's the best value on the market."
"It allows for lower operational overhead."
"Currently, we are paying approximately $7,000 yearly, which includes support."
"If you compare ActiveBatch licensing to Control-M, you're looking at $50,000 as opposed to millions."
"ActiveBatch is currently redesigning themselves. In the past, they were a low cost solution for automation. They had a nice tool that was very inexpensive. With their five-year plan, they will be more enhancement-driven, so they're trying to improve their software, customer service, and the way that their customers get information from them. In doing that, they're raising the price of their base system. They changed from one pricing model to another, which has caused some friction between ActiveBatch and us. We're working through that right now with them. That's one of the reasons why we're why we were evaluating other software packages."
"We're transaction-based, as far as our licensing goes. We have 50,000 transactions a month and our licensing cost is $55,000 a year..."
"Stonebranch is cheaper than Control-M, so many companies are using Stonebranch."
"Outside of licensing fees, there aren't any other costs."
"I don't have pricing information, but I do know it's cheaper than our old legacy system. Other than the standard licensing fees there are no additional costs."
"When we reviewed this solution against other vendors, Stonebranch blew everybody out of the water in terms of cost."
"The price of the solution is at a medium level compared to the competition."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.
787,779 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
15%
Insurance Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about ActiveBatch Workload Automation?
Managing the workload and monitoring the tasks were very difficult with manual interventions. Now, by using ActiveBatch, the process is automated and it runs tasks on a scheduled basis.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ActiveBatch Workload Automation?
I'd advise users to start by knowing what the actual requirement is and thoroughly assess the automation needs. New users should take advantage of the demos and trial versions so they get an idea o...
What needs improvement with ActiveBatch Workload Automation?
After upgrades we are facing a few issues and errors triggered, so focusing on this would be appreciated. Some of the advanced features in the user interface are a bit confusing even after referrin...
What do you like most about Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?
We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?
The pricing is good. I would rate it eight out of ten. The pricing is similar to AutoSys. It's lower than Redwood, which was on the higher side in terms of pricing.
What needs improvement with Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?
It can be hard to manage the task monitor. We are still working with the vendor, and we are trying to make the changes as per our requirements. We are asking them to build some new solutions so the...
 

Also Known As

ActiveBatch
Stonebranch Universal Automation Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Informatica, D&H, ACES, PrimeSource, Sub-Zero Group, SThree, Lamar Advertising, Subway, Xcel Energy, Ignite Technologies, Whataburger, Jyske Bank, Omaha Children's Hospital
Nissan, Coop, United Supermarkets, Groupon, CSC, Orbitz, Johnson & Johnson, BMW, Qantas.
Find out what your peers are saying about ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Stonebranch and other solutions. Updated: June 2024.
787,779 professionals have used our research since 2012.