We performed a comparison between AutoSys Workload Automation and Rocket Zena 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 regarded for its scalability, speed, and availability. It is also appreciated for its capability to connect software processes. Rocket Zena is particularly notable for its user-friendly nature, intuitive user interface, diagram feature, and the simplicity of its Linux configuration.
The reviewers mentioned that AutoSys Workload Automation can improve its integration with cloud services, reporting and comparison of job performance, customization of reporting features and alerts, handling file transfer jobs, monitoring capabilities, advanced features and functionalities, and workload window management. Rocket Zena needs improvement in visibility into connections between applications/components, monitoring of agents, process limitations, user interface, web interface, task stacking, documentation, availability on a distributed platform, and communication between servers.
Service and Support: The customer service for AutoSys Workload Automation is highly regarded, with users praising its effectiveness, helpfulness, and responsiveness. Rocket Zena's customer service is also well-received, with responsive and knowledgeable technical support. However, obtaining higher-level support may sometimes take longer.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for AutoSys Workload Automation is described as simple and efficient, whereas Rocket Zena's setup experience differed among users, with some finding it easier to understand but others finding it complicated.
Pricing: AutoSys Workload Automation has a yearly subscription and an annual license. Rocket Zena is known for its cost-effectiveness and affordability, offering satisfactory licensing and good pricing.
ROI: AutoSys Workload Automation does not provide user feedback or information on ROI. Rocket Zena has demonstrated its ability to enhance efficiency and accuracy.
Comparison Results: AutoSys Workload Automation is favored over Rocket Zena. AutoSys is commended for its simple setup, scalability, user-friendliness, and useful features like job orchestration and real-time batch processing. Users also value the customer service and support provided by AutoSys. AutoSys Workload Automation offers a more extensive and user-friendly solution.
"The most valuable feature of AutoSys Workload Automation is batch processing."
"Automic Automation Engine provides us the ability to map logic using a scripting language."
"It is a fairly stable solution."
"It streamlines processing really well, so we're able to cut down on our processing times."
"I prefer AutoSys over the other ones out there for ease of use, ease of understanding, and getting people to understand how the tool works."
"It works constantly and is pretty seamless. You do not have to open up many support tickets."
"It has helped to simplify cross-dependency between MVS and Open systems jobs."
"It allows you to automate tasks, and reduce headcount, prevent errors, self-heal."
"The most valuable feature is the FTP file transfer."
"In the latest upgrade, Zena added a web-based client. The more I use it, the more I like it. It's an excellent interface. They do a good job of steadily improving the solution to make it more useful."
"We haven't had any problems since we installed it. It runs as expected, we haven't had any critical problems. It helps keeps the business running 24/7."
"I have used other tools with similar capabilities; it's the ease of use."
"I have found the scheduling feature the most valuable. I can map dependencies by using ASG-Zena. It gives a nice, quick visualization as to where things are."
"I like the whole product, but specifically, I like the license part. It's very easy to acquire a license for this product."
"From a Linux configuration point of view, Rocket Zena is straightforward. It's fairly easy to set up the server and agents once you know how to do it."
"You can click Ctrl-G and bring a diagram view. You're able to view in a diagram format. The view that it provides is easy, and you can move to the left, up, or down. You can double-click on a certain process. It'll drill into that process and all of its underlying components. You can double-click on an arrow or a component, and it'll bring up a screen that'll have all the variables that are assigned to that particular piece, as well as the values at run time. So, the diagram feature of it, at least for me, is pretty valuable."
"Performance improvements in the UI would be appreciated."
"The cross-platform arena, where you can run work on multiple platforms, needs improvement."
"This product needs to improve its graphical user interface."
"The GUI/Workstation is weak and needs to be improved. CA is working on this right now."
"Ease of implementation for upgrades."
"The solution does not have a friendly subscription model because it forces users to take a five-year subscription simultaneously, charging millions of dollars."
"There is a difference between a web interface and the thick client interface. We particularly like a thick client interface, and it has gone away."
"Needs better documentation with fully explained examples for some of the job types."
"In the next release, I would like the user experience to be improved. The user interface should be more appealing to gen-z."
"The scheduling mapping is a little disjointed. There is no wizard-type approach. There are a lot of different things that you have to do in completely different areas. They could probably add the functionality for creating all components of a mapping or an OPA schedule. The component creation could be done collectively rather than through individual components."
"One area where it could be improved is communication between the different servers. Sometimes there are processes that have already been completed but we get a status notification that they're still active."
"In the web interface, it stacks the tasks across the top, and they accumulate until you close or clean those out. That seems a little cumbersome. You must right-click and close all tabs constantly to keep the console clean and manage your views."
"Rocket Zena is a mainframe-based job scheduler. I would like it to be more open so that we can use it on a distributed platform."
"Another one that is probably a little bit bigger for me is that when there is an issue or there's an error, it writes on a different screen. I have to find the actual process name and go to a different screen to view the alert that got generated. On that screen, everyone's processes, not just the processes of the folks in my department, are thrown. It takes me a while to find the actual error so that I could go in there and look at the alert. It could be because of the way it was set up, but at least for me, it isn't too intuitive."
"The UI is not intuitive, and it would be nice if there was a web interface."
"The documentation has room for improvement."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while Rocket Zena is ranked 12th in Workload Automation with 9 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while Rocket Zena is rated 8.4. 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 Rocket Zena writes "A continuously evolving, stable solution, with responsive support". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Automic Workload Automation and Stonebranch, whereas Rocket Zena is most compared with Control-M, Rocket Zeke, IBM Workload Automation and ActiveBatch by Redwood. See our AutoSys Workload Automation vs. Rocket Zena 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.