Automic Workload Automation vs Stonebranch comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 12, 2023
 

Categories and Ranking

Automic Workload Automation
Ranking in Workload Automation
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
85
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
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 Automic Workload Automation is 8.1%, up from 6.6% 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:
No other categories found
No other categories found
 

Featured Reviews

Antonio Cesar Dos Santos - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 4, 2023
Excellently priced solution that helps with executing scripts in various environments
I primarily use Workload Automation for financial technology feedback Workload Automation has helped us with executing scripting in various environments, including Linux, Windows, and SAP. Workload Automation's most valuable features are perspective analytics and coding. I've been using…
Siddharth Matalia - PeerSpot reviewer
Jan 27, 2023
Good GUI and has helpful support but needs a mobile app
This was a migration project where we provided our database, the previous one, and there was a tool that automatically converted the awarded job into Stonebranch. All the conversion was done from the Stonebranch side, and we got a person as well from Stonebranch during migration. There was a person who worked with us a decade back for the AutoSys install as well. He was well aware of our environment, so he helped us a lot. It was easy. It was not that complex. It is much more GUI. That said, we are looking for how the various automation can be done since, through command lines, you can create a number of jobs. While you are creating a single job, it takes 15 minutes with the GUI, however, if you go for the command line, within two or three minutes, your job gets completed. We have built our own solution for automation using some REST API and all those various integrations. It is working for our organization right now. However, we are requesting some kind of solution from Stonebranch. They should have been providing that to us already. For deployment, three or four people were engaged with the setup on their side. To manage everything, they provided us with a person who required help to manage it. Eventually, since it was a cloud platform on their side, if there is some configuration necessary, which they do it. They get a notification, and they fix it very immediately if there is an issue. The response time is very good from their side, and we don't have to worry about maintenance.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most important and critical process business in the bank, including COB, closed or business, which has to run on a daily basis, is automated."
"It helps our efficiency because it is a batch processing tool which works without a menu."
"We have all of our payroll being done in the platform. There are a lot of different processes that need to be taken care of, and they all need to be linked together. When you put them into a workflow, and you know that you've built logic into that workflow, and you have alerting, it's something you can step back from. You don't have to be worried about every single piece of that puzzle. If something goes wrong, you have confidence that some alerting will let you know. It streamlines, it makes things go faster, less eyes on glass."
"Support is good and it works fine."
"The most valuable feature is it always runs things automatically that you normally have to do manually, like download files."
"It has greatly increased our efficiencies and productivity, and reduced the amount of human interaction required."
"It enables us to build automation which is flexible in a controlled environment."
"The solution helped us fix issues and optimize them. We now run with zero errors."
"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 interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"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."
"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 like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
 

Cons

"This solution's out-of-box automation sets could be improved. They could be industry standardized out-of-box, or even runbook automation processes could be useful—just some plug-and-play automation processes out-of-box. It has many integration capabilities, from APIs to databases, but if the customer sees some out-of-box automation processes in it, it could be useful."
"Most of our issues are related to the system, not the job scheduling, such as, bugs and unexpected downtime of the application or database."
"Its dashboard can be improved. In version 12, they have already moved to a web-based interface from a UI. We are looking into this feature now. We are also looking for available APIs that we can use to interface the engine into our other systems. There should be a subservice facility that we can use to interface with Microsoft Teams and send out authorization on job executions. We have seen a feature like this in other products that we are looking into."
"With every new version, things that would previously work, Automic breaks them. So, we have to report the new bugs. Therefore, every time when we patch the system, there is usually a new bug or a feature that was working, then it stops working."
"There has to be a better way to visualize things in the application without having so many windows open."
"During installation, some database elective issues popped up. These took some time to fix, but after some back and forth communication, these issues were resolved."
"Today, we use a rich client for this product. In the future, or for the next release, they will be using a web interface. This web interface is not as scalable as the rich client for us. The web client is not 100 percent programmed as we need it."
"Depending on the properties of the jobs and pre- and post-conditions, there needs to be more flexible and richer conditions that I can check for. This would be a great addition."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Automatic is heavily integrated in our organization. The cost to change would be a huge factor for us, and we have not found any other product that is better out there."
"The pricing is based on the number of servers and agents."
"I only know that AWA is cheaper than Control-M, but I'm not aware of the numbers."
"We have received a lot of time and cost efficiencies from using the product."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The cost of arrays is high. If you want to buy an array for an application, and see value from it, you need about half a million dollars. That is too expensive."
"You do not need any humans to start jobs, so you can save a lot of money."
"Certain licenses can be a bit expensive. The PeopleSoft agents, in particular, are a bit pricey."
"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."
"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."
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
22%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Retailer
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 Automic Workload Automation?
It is easy to manage complex workloads and use electronic workflow automation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Automic Workload Automation?
The solution was flexible in terms of pricing. We're moving away from it, not due to price, but rather based on our requirements. They did provide us with an unlimited license that matched our budget.
What needs improvement with Automic Workload Automation?
The AI capabilities and predictive modeling aren't very good. I don't see a future for that. It's very basic. That's part of the reason we moved to Stonebranch. They have more analytic capabilities...
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

Automic Dollar Universe
Stonebranch Universal Automation Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Adidas, 84.51, ESB
Nissan, Coop, United Supermarkets, Groupon, CSC, Orbitz, Johnson & Johnson, BMW, Qantas.
Find out what your peers are saying about Automic Workload Automation vs. Stonebranch and other solutions. Updated: June 2024.
787,779 professionals have used our research since 2012.