Automic Automation Reviews

We can automate nearly all business processes except for real-time processes using Automic Automation.

Ten years ago, I was first introduced to Automic Automation during a migration project for a major bank. Their legacy system lacked SAP integration, which Automic Automation provided, necessitating the switch.

Our customers utilize Automic Automation in a hybrid environment that encompasses both on-premises and cloud-based infrastructures.

Overall, Automic Automation offers excellent functionality and is an outstanding product in the market. Despite its limitations, it remains one of the best options available. While scripting languages can be used to implement special functionality, this approach is outdated. For more modern and efficient implementation, Python or custom scripting languages tailored to specific workflows are preferable.

Reducing job and workload failure rates across multiple cloud environments is of utmost importance. Workflows and workload engines are vital components for a wide range of processes, not only in business and IT but also in healthcare. Managing resource-intensive workflow engineering businesses also necessitates effective workflow automation. In technical settings, such as clinics, workflows, and processes can be automated using virtual engines. We are at the early stages of these developments, and a unified approach between business, IT, and technical teams is crucial for success. Two key considerations are the flow and dependencies between activities, and the bulk load management, which involves controlling resource consumption.

Automic  Automation has been instrumental in enhancing our compliance processes. The software effectively automates multi-step processes, making them more efficient and streamlined. Compliance processes are particularly well-suited for redesign and segmentation into smaller components. While compliance processes share similarities with other processes, such as login procedures, they hold a unique importance akin to security. Virtual engines have the potential to automate and control a wide range of processes, including security, compliance, and even genetic analysis. However, their implementation in these areas is still in its early stages. Additionally, virtual engines can facilitate complex workflows, such as channel analysis.

With Automic Automation for traditional IT, achieving SLAs is assured. This is because we maintain complete control over our workflow. When an issue arises, we can quickly pinpoint the cause, whether it's a failed job or another factor. Event processing provides similar visibility, offering an alternative perspective on the situation. While some advocate for workflows as the primary means of SLA fulfillment, this approach is not entirely comprehensive. The most effective strategy for achieving SLAs involves a combination of event management and ITSM infrastructure.

Automic Automation is a highly complex yet versatile tool.

Due to Automic Automation's proprietary scripting language, upgrading it can be extremely challenging, unlike other workflow automation products that offer seamless migration. This inflexibility makes Automic Automation the most complex and restrictive solution in the market. Choosing Automic Automation essentially locks us into their ecosystem, making it nearly impossible to switch to a different product. Therefore, I strongly advise against using Automic Automation.

Automic Automation's AI capabilities are limited. Most traditional workflow products lack robust support for AI workflows. Airflow might be a suitable option for AI workflows. However, if real-time AI processing is required, a different product altogether is necessary. For example, in the field of genetics, if a workflow involves thousands of jobs, traditional workflow products such as Automic Automation may struggle to handle such a large workload. The maximum capacity of these products might be around 1,000 or 2,000 jobs. In contrast, a genetic workflow could involve up to 100,000 jobs, requiring a completely different workflow product specifically designed for such large-scale processing.

Mainstream workflow products like Automic Automation offer similar functionalities and are widely used around the globe. These products typically check for process completion every second. However, in high-performance computing and emerging fields like medicine or ophthalmology, we need to control thousands of jobs simultaneously, requiring millisecond-level process completion checks. To achieve this, we can store event data in databases or perform on-the-fly checks. Additionally, we need to integrate workflow control with workload management to prevent machine overload. These requirements make it unsuitable for tasks like controlling genomic workflows.

I have been using Automic Automation for over ten years.

Automic Automation's technical support, like that of many other companies, is inadequate due to their outsourcing practices. In an effort to cut costs, they relocated their support staff to India. The best technical support I've ever received came from Israel. Many Israeli products, such as those from Mellanox, exude a similar level of quality. Mellanox, now owned by NVIDIA, resolved complex issues for me within a couple of days. When I encountered problems with Cisco switches, it took weeks to find a solution. I had to communicate with someone in India, then return to development, and so on. It's preferable to avoid discussing this issue altogether. It's a common problem among IT companies. They want to transfer their first and second-level support to India, with third-level support potentially remaining in the United States or near the product's development location. In general, I would advise disregarding support that lacks engineering expertise. They are incapable of resolving any issues.

The installation of Automic Automation is complex due to the lack of full automation in both the installation and distribution processes.

The pricing of Automic Automation varies depending on the specific contract terms. While one of our customers in the banking industry has secured a favorable contract with Automic Automation compared to other scheduling solutions, new contracts for Automic Automation tend to be on the higher end of the pricing spectrum.

I would rate Automic Automation nine out of ten. The product is very good, but I would not buy it because I would be too limited by the scripting language. I would be locked into using this vendor indefinitely, potentially for the next two hundred years.

Two of our customers are still using Automic Automation because it is too complex and expensive to migrate over to another solution. The main problem is the script language. In order to migrate, the entire workflow would need to be redesigned.

Automic Automation provides exceptional visibility and control across internal operating platforms. Its scripting language offers remarkable flexibility. However, due to vendor lock-in, I would not recommend its adoption. Automic's inability to support migration to other vendors presents a significant drawback. Although the product boasts a wide range of features and is currently undergoing improvement, its inflexibility in terms of migration remains a major concern. For new projects, I would recommend considering alternative solutions such as Control-M or Tivoli, which offer greater flexibility and easier migration capabilities.

While supporting multiple platforms is a common feature among mainstream schedulers, Automic Automation's ability to do so is not a significant differentiator. Even the most widely used schedulers can encounter challenges with Windows, but we can devise a solution to address these issues.

Encompassing all environments, the customer aims to automate their IT infrastructure, virtual systems, and all processing operations. This automation spans from mainframe legacy systems to current Unix and Linux environments. A workflow system will be employed to automate critical processes.

The necessity of utilizing Automic Automation on both cloud and on-premises environments is contingent upon specific customer requirements. While some organizations, particularly those in the government and financial sectors, may prefer an on-premises approach, others may embrace cloud-based solutions or a hybrid model that integrates both cloud and on-premises infrastructure.

As we strive for a comprehensive automation solution, the ability to monitor automation across multiple environments becomes increasingly intricate. This poses a significant challenge, prompting traditional automation products like Ansible and Terraform to incorporate workflow capabilities. For instance, IBM has integrated workflows into Ansible, necessitating the use of a database to store these web flows. To illustrate, IBM enhanced Ansible by incorporating a workflow engine and a database. Similarly, other automation products such as Terraform and others are adopting similar strategies, integrating virtual engines within their products.

Every workflow product requires maintenance.

Automic Automation aims to expand into AI and other emerging fields in the future. However, current limitations hinder their progress. Instead of pursuing these advancements, they should focus on developing new products for AI, genomics, and HPC. These new solutions could potentially replace mainstream schedulers for traditional applications like SAP, Informatica, Automic, and Control-M. While Automic Automation remains a viable solution for existing applications, alternative products are better suited for emerging technologies.

During the closing of business processes, it does provide the interface you require to interact with, including various systems, operating systems, databases, customer services, and so forth. It is very, very good. I'm quite pleased with it. I stay in very close contact with bank operators since they have to close the business on a daily basis.

The USB port is okay. 

The product in general, is okay. I do appreciate it from an architecture point of view. 

The most important and critical process business in the bank, including COB, close of business, which has to run on a daily basis, is automated. This is the most critical and the most important business process in the bank. 

The electronic work order combinations have the ability to scale and handle large volumes of data. So far, it's fine, as of right now. We don't have huge amounts of data. The amount of backups involved is quite limited, and for the amount of data exchange, it's actually pretty low. 

It is easy to manage complex workloads using automatic workflow automation. I would rate it above average. It's far from perfect. However, it's above average.

It's good for managing processes that span multiple operating platforms. We have very good integrations between everything. We have multiple agents surrounding only Nutanix. I'm happy with that.

Automic Automation helped improve our compliance processes. For example, we have to prove that we do a backup or daily backup, and so forth. It is very easy to extract the backup report and the enterprise report. Whenever we have a compliance audit, I can simply send those outputs and everything is fine.

The only thing I'm actually not satisfied with is, during the COB, the use of processes makes time estimation for the flow completion harder. Most of the time, it is not accurate, and it's actually very frustrating for the operators since they have to run the COB. They have to connect many people each and every day to run the closed business for the core banking system for the production environment and also for the testing environment. Since they have to work in shifts, the first thing they are looking at is whenever they are going to complete the task. I'm not sure what data they use to make time estimates. However, most of the time it is not accurate. It's either way too long or way too short.

I've used the solution for a while. I've used it for more than three years - almost four, in fact. 

I consider the solution stable. 

We have 20 to 30 people using the solution right now. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

To some extent, I provide support myself. Whenever I need additional support, I can go to our business partner, a local company, and they can help. They've been very nice and helpful. 

I'm also familiar with Control M. I prefer Automic as it has multiple interfaces and capabilities to interact with various types of systems - even old, legacy databases. 

I handled the initial setup, including handling the requirements and infrastructure.

When we installed the solution two years ago, we installed the latest versions - whatever was available at that time. 

The implementation wasn't easy. However, I had local partners from a local company to assist with the setup. It would be difficult for inexperienced people to install it alone. They have to understand the concept. They have to understand the architecture and be able to manage the credentials required to authenticate. I had these problems, for example, when I set up the UC port.

I handled the implementation by myself.

I worked with local partners during implementation. They had a very good background.

I can't speak to the exact pricing. I don't manage that. 

While I did not evaluate other options, it's my understanding that my managers did. I don't have any details, however.

We are Broadcom customers. 

We are not actually using them as cloud capabilities. We are only running on-premises.

We have yet to use any AI functionality. However, we are interested in the possibilities. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

We use the solution to automate business processes, including those in SAP systems, mainframes, host systems, and so on. Most of our environments are automated, from Windows to Unix. 

It's a powerful product.

I'm very familiar with the interface. It's easy to use. It's very intuitive and useful.

Nearly all of our business processes are automated using this product. It's not really complex. It has drag-and-drop capabilities. You can take an SAP job and move it into the workflow.

The scalability is great.

There's good visibility across operating platforms. You can see system states and logs, et cetera. It's powerful. You can analyze log files and get a good view of them. I'm not as familiar with the data analysis part, however, as I don't really use it. 

The solution offers connectivity in any direction. We have an old mainframe and have connectivity with special systems, SAP, and data connectors. 

It's helped us reduce workload failure across multiple cloud environments by 90%.

With this solution, we've been able to free up staff for other projects or tasks. The automation makes it possible to save time on various tasks.

We've been able to reduce operational costs thanks to its virtual presence.  

The solution could be improved by offering better management. They need to make it more intuitive. It would be helpful if they could visually flag items. You do need to log into the system and have some technical knowledge.

It would be better if it was easier to view the automated processes.

I've been using the solution for nearly 15 years.

The stability is good. I'd rate it seven out of ten. 

The solution scales well. You can scale from the system nodes, and there is no limit to the workload. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

Technical support could be better. However, for the most part, it's okay. The speed of response is pretty fast.

Neutral

We did previously use a different solution. We switched to the brand leader in our region. The look and feel of the interface are very good in comparison.

We do help our customers implement the product. The implementation's level of difficulty depends on what has to be automated. The tool itself isn't rocket science; however, complex automation may exist. If there's a big ETL or data warehouse with thousands of jobs, it can get complex. 

There is a bit of maintenance needed, for example, around security updates. 

There are different licensing models, so the solution is very flexible and can align with customer needs. The pricing itself is cheaper than BMC and other options. 

We're a consulting company and run a lot of POCs with customers looking for other solutions. 

We're a Broadcom partner. 

The solution has helped us with our ability to meet our SLAs.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Our company uses the solution to run scripts for customers. For each use case, we create a description and use it with the agent to schedule run times. 

Our team size ranges from 40 to 50 people and varies across clients or use cases. 

The solution includes many features and is scalable and stable. 

The automation tool provides scripting that is easy to convert for specific requirements. 

The pricing has the potential to be high because it is based on the number of servers and agents. 

I have been using the solution for five years. 

The solution's stability is better than other products. We do not see the solution fail much at all. 

We had issues with other products where servers would go down or items needed to be fixed and that caused struggles. 

The solution is scalable. 

I worked closely with technical support for overall assistance during my first installation and they were dedicated and helpful. 

I have not needed support for issues but am currently working with them to complete another installation. 

Sometimes support leaves out details, but they do help a lot with tools. 

I rate technical support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

The ease of setup depends on the person who handles it. The setup is a bit different because it includes four or five components that require separate installations. There are various steps and processes to follow. If you have knowledge of the solution, then setup is easy. 

Typical setups take 14 to 16 hours for server and data installations. 

We implement the solution for customers. 

The pricing is based on the number of servers and agents. 

Our developers chose the solution because of its scalability, stability, and features. Technical support is also much better than what competitors offer.

The solution allows us to do everything we want. We can use it for smaller items or large-scale projects with no problems. 

It is important to understand workload automation and how the solution functions. Work with your customer to determine the infrastructure and number of agents or servers. Create an infrastructure table and then starting installing to those specifications. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I use Automic Workload Automation for SAP-related use cases. They are primarily functional and nonfunctional job executions for SAP Windows Unique. So, mainly for a business process or business functions, job execution, and creating dependencies related to retail like Oracle and SAP jobs execution.

I like that Automic Workload Automation has many features compared to other products. There are a lot of good features, and architecture-wise there is a valuable client concept. The architecture and the multi-tenancy is a multi-client concept. That is also useful.

The manage file transfer area could be better. The file transfer area needs improvement. Other products like Control-M have some good features in this area.

I have been working with Automic Workload Automation for the last ten years.

Automic Workload Automation is a stable solution. It's good because, architecture-wise, it has high reliability. So, we recommend it to our customers and ask them to use two or three-node architecture. If one goes down, the other should be up. So, two or three-node architecture is stable.

Automic Workload Automation is a scalable solution. Scalability depends on the architecture. We are currently running 10,000 jobs or 20,000 jobs with two-node architecture. If we want to add one node or if we're going to add more resources, you can do it online. You do not need any downtime. You can run thousands of pages and millions of jobs.

Technical support is good. I worked with a particular dedicated client, and we had to reach out to Broadcom once or twice a month for help. Whenever we raised a ticket, they responded within a day or the next day. Most of the time, it wasn't even an urgent issue.

Nowadays, they have very helpful knowledge articles. If I have an error and they share some knowledge articles, I get the solution through those articles. They are helpful.

The initial setup is straightforward. It hardly takes half an hour or one hour, but small components like agents must be installed later. The initial fresh installation will take about one hour.

I'm not sure about licensing costs, but I know the base price is about $3,000, and you can get some kind of discount per node.

I would tell potential customers that they must use third-party software like Control-M, Stonebranch, AutoSys, or Tidal to migrate to Automic Workload Automation. 

If we compare it to any market-leading software, like Control-M BMC, Automic has the same capability, but Automic provides everything as a bundled product. Others like BMC sell their products in different modules. So, you have to buy the license, and on top of that, you have to buy the separate modules. 

I would also tell potential users that with competing products, they need a job-based license if they plan to scale up and avoid penalization. But as Automic is node-based, there will be no penalty if you are running 5,000 jobs today and 6,000 jobs tomorrow. It'll be the same.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Automic Workload Automation a seven.

We used Automic for a multinational pharmaceutical client.

In the latest version, we can access the solution through a web browser as well. 

The web-based edition is missing a lot of the most important features available in Automic, we have absence. For example, when I'm scheduling a job, there is normally a flag that you can toggle to activate and deactivate the task, but that doesn't work properly in the web version. It's missing a lot of the calendar and scheduling features. 

My organization used the tool for almost 10 years, but we were dissatisfied when we upgraded to web-based edition because it doesn't provide all the options. It's challenging to create a new job or edit and reconfigure an existing. The web version has to be improved on various levels. 

Previously, we were using Solaris with Automic, but now I think it's Unix and Windows. I don't know what version you are going to provide for the cloud. The cloud always supports Unix and Windows, so it means the tool is cloud compatible.

In the web version, everything is moving from the on-premise server to the cloud. So in this scenario, the Automic tool has to be more cloud-oriented. We are not sure how it will work in the cloud. Since 2011 or 2012, we have been using Automic on-prem only. It would be nice to have more documentation about using the cloud version of Automic. The tool could be more user-friendly as well. Most people consider Automic to be a difficult tool to understand and use.

I've been using Automic for six years, but we just switched to another tool called AutoSys six months ago.

Automic is 99 percent stable. We've never had a problem with stability.

The scalability could be improved because we have three kinds of tools on our hardware itself, and we don't know whether Automic will accommodate the other two jobs as well. We have 200 direct users and probably 1,000 who benefit from the tool indirectly.

It depends on the terms of the support contract, but sometimes it will take two or three days to fix an issue. The impact is high because this type of job scheduling solution is used mostly for finance. For example, let's say there are 3,000 jobs scheduled, and four jobs fail. That could mean millions of dollars lost.

It should be fine If they provide support within eight to 16 hours, but they typically take three days to get a response. That won't work because on the impact side. On the other hand, it's highly stable, so we are generally okay, but we still face some bugs every six months or so. When that happens, we expect a speedy response.

The initial setup was straightforward, but it gets complex when you start using it. It will only be complex if you're a new user. The total deployment time for the original and web version was about three months. That includes installation and testing. During the testing, we found missing features, so it took three months to set the solution up, configure it correctly, and test it. 

The personnel needed to manage and maintain the solution depends on staffing and scheduling. For example, If you are providing 24-hour support 365 days a year, you need six at the most. We need one person per shift, and we have three eight-hour shifts. Including backups, that's three to six people. 

I don't have any numbers about the return handy. We didn't renew the license, and we've already onboarded the other solution and started using it. It's costly and our companies are cutting costs. They consider this an extra cost, so we didn't renew for this year.

The license for Automic is around $7,000 per year, which is somewhat costly, but it includes enterprise support. 

I rate Automic Workload Automation eight out of 10.

Automic Workload Automation is a workload automation tool.

Automic Workload Automation's use cases are primarily focused on large enterprise users. With over 3,500 customers, the tool is well-suited for core automation tasks in various sectors, especially in the banking industry where Automic has a strong presence. The platform offers largest number of out-of-the-box integrations which sets it apart from other workload automation solutions. This integration capability is a key area where Automic Workload Automation excels.

Unlike other Orchestration or Workload Automation tools, Automic Workload Automation stands out as a versatile single solution capable of handling various use cases such as business process automation, workload automation, service orchestration, and DR automation. There's no need for additional tools to make it compatible with your specific use case. Automic Workload Automation can handle it all without requiring any sideline tools to be installed.

The concept is that with a single skill set, you can automate all your daily automation requirements.

Automic Workload Automation offers a useful scripting language that is built on top of JCL. Unlike other workload automation tools in the market that have to rely on third-party integrators, such as Python to develop their own scripts, Automic Workload Automation provides a scripting language that can be easily implemented with support from the vendor. This makes the implementation process smooth and hassle-free, and the scripting language can be used to run any impetus within the process. With the help of this scripting language, there are no limitations to what can be automated. Automic Workload Automation provides a flexible and powerful solution for automating various tasks.

The solution can be deployed quickly with Kubernetes which is useful.

There are frequent updates fixing vulnerabilities and other problems.

Automic Workload Automation could improve the SaaS deployment.

The vendor should provide updated features for customers to try on a trial basis.

I have used Automic Workload Automation for approximately within the last 12 months.

The solution is stable. My customers have not raised tickets in years.

Automic Workload Automation is highly scalable, such as adding endpoints. There is little maintenance required. With a Kubernetes installation, there are auto-scaling and other helpful features.

We have over 3,000 users using the solution worldwide. Additionally, we have SMBs and other customers. We have customers in all industries, such as retail, banks, insurance companies, aviation industries, and airlines.

Automic Workload Automation has been in the market for 10 to 15 years, which has made it a strong and reliable solution. The platform has a large and active community, as well as partner networks available worldwide that contribute to the community. If you encounter any issues, the Broadcom community is always available to provide support, and the technical support team is also excellent. In the past, there were some issues related to connection issues, which affected all sectors, especially the fourth part. However, Automic has been actively working on improving the support side since 2009 and has been highly accurate in providing support.

Initially, deploying Automic Workload Automation was challenging, but it has become much simpler. However, if you want to set it up in a distributed environment, it may take a day or two due to critical sites and firewall requirements. For a single box installation, it hardly takes thirty minutes to set up.

We do the implementation of the solution. We have all specialized documentation that we follow making the process simple for us. We can deploy the agents from the console ourselves.

The cost of the solution depends on the number of systems that are being orchestrated.

My recommendation to existing users is to consider onboarding more use cases on Automic Workload Automation. The platform has a lot of potential, and it is not necessary to limit its use to just one team. You can expand and expose the tool to other departments, such as IT or business vendors, to unlock its full potential. Since you have already invested in the product, you can brainstorm within your organization to identify areas for automation improvements and onboard more use cases accordingly.

I rate Automic Workload Automation a ten out of ten.

I primarily use Automic Automation for financial technology feedback.

Automic Automation has helped us with executing scripting in various environments, including Linux, Windows, and SAP.

Automic Automation's most valuable features are perspective analytics and coding.

I've been using Automic Automation for a year.

Automic Automation's stability is okay.

Automic Automation's scalability is excellent.

I would not recommend using Automic's technical support for complex problems.

The initial setup was complex.

Automic Automation's pricing is excellent, especially in comparison to similar solutions.

I would give Automic Automation a rating of eight out of ten.

We don't use it in my company. We implement for our customers. They primarily use the solution for workflow automation and work close with oracle. 

This is an easy-to-use, user-friendly product. The user interface is very simple and straightforward. 

It scales well. We can increase or reduce the number of nodes as needed. 

It is easy to set up. 

The solution is stable. 

The support could be better in the future.

They should work to reduce pricing. 

I've been using the solution for around two to three years.

It is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. I'd rate the stability nine out of ten. 

The solution is very easy to scale up and down by increasing or reducing nodes. 

I'd rate the scalability ten out of ten. 

Our clients are quite sizable, at least in Thailand. They are all enterprise-level organizations. 

The solution was recently acquired by another company, and since then, support has suffered. They need to work to bring better support services back to the product. 

Neutral

I am also well-versed in Stonebranch Universal Automation Center.

The setup is pretty straightforward. I'd rate it eight out of ten in terms of ease of implementation. 

Deploying the solution only takes about one day. You simply have to install and configure, and you are ready to go. The process is fast. 

We have a team of five that can handle deployment and maintenance tasks. 

This is quite expensive. It's one of the most expensive on the market. That said, I can't speak much about the exact pricing. I would rate it six out of ten in terms of affordability.

We are partners. 

I'd invite anyone to try the solution as it is user-friendly and has an easy user interface. It's functional and scalable. Overall, the product is quite good. 

I'd rate the product nine out of ten. I'm very happy with it in general. 

It is basically for workload automation. Automic has also got other features, but we are not using them. We are just sticking to workload automation. We basically do batch processing through automation. We mostly have nightly batches and cyclical batches during the daytime.

The reason we went with Automic is very simple. We were using ESP, which was a Broadcom product. So, Automic happened to be a natural fit. It was a much easier transition from ESP to Automic. We had familiarity with the vendor and the product.

There are pain points, like anything else. Sometimes, things they say work, and sometimes, they don't work. You need to find out why they don't work and then go back and have them fixed. 

We have been using it for close to a year.

Like any product, there are glitches. We had used ESP for almost 30 years. So, we were very familiar with the tool, and it was pretty stable. This is an agent-based solution. So, sometimes, the agents don't respond and triggers don't work. Those kinds of issues are still there.

Workload automation is not heavy stuff. When things have to happen, they just wake up and do the work. It is not like an E-commerce solution where your workload is going to increase by X factor and then you add X servers. It is not that way. So, from a scalability point of view, it is scalable.

They're pretty okay. We worked with CA before Broadcom bought them. So, we've got a long working relationship with them for over 20 years, and their support is pretty okay.

They work with a partner to help you with implementation and migration. The partner had tools for migration from ESP to Automic, which was helpful.

Its price is way up there with BMC. It is a little bit on the expensive side.

We only use it for workload automation. We haven't explored the tool as such. It claims to have a lot of features, but we have just touched the surface of it.

From a workload automation point of view, there are multiple tools. You've got BMC. You've got Automic, and you've got Stonebranch. Stonebranch is the smaller of the lot, and from a solution perspective, their agent can work with any other automation tool. Cost-wise also, it is much cheaper than the others. If you are a small enterprise and don't have an existing tool, Stonebranch wouldn't be a bad option.

I would rate Automic Workload Automation a seven out of ten.