Automic Automation Reviews

We use it for batch processing. It is performing well.

We are doing the end of day processing, as we are a bank. It is very important for us that we do not have one hour of downtime, because we are online the whole day, 24/7.

It helps our efficiency because it is a batch processing tool which works without a menu.

We are an old-fashioned company. We are only using the product for batch processing.

I would like a good AWI in the next release. The AWI is not fully functional at this time.

The stability is not as good as it could be, because we are on version 10, but it is okay.

Every time we have an upgrade for a new version, we have stability problems, because the versions are not as good as they should be. Then, after a few months, they get more stability, and we are happy with it.

The scalability is great.

Sometimes technical support is very good, and sometimes it is very bad. They do not see the problems which we have. We have to escalate it to our product manager. When we need a fix, they say, "The fix is in the next version. Please wait while we make updates."

Use Automic or CA Workload Automation, as it is the best tool.

The primary use case is automation of our business processes within the bank along with several areas of process automation. We have been using the product for 10 years now and have built it up from scratch. We do a lot of stuff with it, of which, we are mostly satisfied, though there will always be problems with it.

It enables us to build automation which is flexible in a controlled environment. We have a lot of governance and compliance requirements as a bank that we can fulfill with this product. We can fulfill them because we have an environment where everything is monitored where you have an audit trail of the product and for the executions of the development. 

We can perform across platform automation with a product, and we are not bound to one architecture or system. We can bind together a lot of systems and ways of integrating systems. That is the most positive effect on our end. It is very flexible to program around your automation.

The stability needs improvement.

The stability is not as good as it was in former years. Stability has gone down from version to version, but it is probably due to the product's complexity and transitions in the company. Stability could be better, as it was better in the past.

The scalability is okay, as we are not scaling so much. 

Technical support is good. They are doing the best that they can, but it is a complex product with difficult requirements from a stability point of view.

The initial setup was 10 years ago, so it was easy at the time. With each upgrade, it will probably have more complexity, but it has been a little hidden because it is a step-by-step process. Though, the complexity is okay with the setup.

It is not so easy to give numbers. There are just a lot of things that you cannot do without this product.

We evaluated some competitors a decade ago, and Automic (UC4) was the best choice. We look at the product and features. We did tests and an installation of the product, then we decided on Automic.

The other competitors, 10 years ago, were CA and IBM.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: 

• Product features (i.e., flexibility).
• It must fit the requirements.
• A partner that you can rely on.

Work Automation is a worldwide product which has a lot of utilities. It can be very helpful for use with customers' data, and it is very quick with utilizations, customizations, etc, so we can meet the customers' needs.

Customers save a lot of money when they use this product, because of things like the scheduling tool. I know several companies which are not using it. Overall, it seems more expensive, because Workload Automation can save a lot of time and human resources.

It does give our customers a competitive advantage in their space.

Its stability.

From Workload Automation, which is missing for me personally, is a workload portion. I can see dependencies of the job directly in the graphical view, therefore I would not have to use the search button to search for every object every time that I needed to see if it was a predecessor.  

For the user interface of version 12.1, I cannot find a lot of utilities and objects from previous versions, making me change my habits. This is not good.

I am working with Workload Automation for more than ten years, when it was named UC4, then renamed again, etc. We have never had big problems with stability of this product.

The performance is very good. If there are problems, they will be caused by somebody doing something wrong. Usually the product does not have a lot of problems, and we did recognize when the application has failed due to errors.

You can do a lot of customization and build your architecture and hierarchy as you want it.

Since you are able to save resources and costs, you can grow your business.

We do not contact support very often. Most answers are in the documentation.

When we install the version 12.0 and 12.1, AVI caused some problems, but after opened a ticket to technical support, they responded quickly with a great answer.

I would recommend to definitely try the product.

In our company, we use it for the following:

• Scheduling of SAP and ERP jobs.
• Backing up most of our servers.
• ITSM and scheduling using the automation agent.
• Running our non-ERP jobs, or for some other applications. 
• File transfer and automation services.

We were using UC4, which was very good. We have had some challenges within the application as it moves forward to the new features. 

For example, our users are used to the flatline of the UC4. When we introduced the AVI, they are not interested nor motivated to use it.

There are some challenges because of the new features and the new change of interfaces. Nevertheless, we use this application to organize our jobs and to integrate the applications within the company. It is useful for report generation and backups.

It is good and efficient in terms of workload.

• File transfer
• The solution for rocket automation, as a file transfer and its agents.
• Mostly SAP scripting.
• Integration with most of the platforms that we have within the company's Windows, Linux, and Unix. Integrating these inside the automation agent for scheduling, backups, file transfer, and SAP jobs.

We have a lot of file transfers with Quest. Hopefully, their product management can add this feature since we do the file transfers now with SharePoint.

We want to establish a service where we can be a file transfer expert for everything. We want an automation engine that we can use within our company. We would like to use this particular software to provide file transfer service.

It is more stable now. In the previous versions 8 and 10, it is more stable, but with the AVI version 12, it is more complicated and we encounter a lot of problems. We need to install hot pieces and badges every time, so it means downtime for us. This is starting from version 12, which is why we are not happy with it. 

It provides a large scale for us, because it is flexible, in terms of usage. We have done a proof of concept within this application.

I think we are known to the technical support. Unfortunately, the technical support does not help much with our problems until you get to the gurus due to the complexity of our problems.

Automation is very powerful. This solution is flexible in terms of platform integration. They need better CA support , because in terms of issues and problem solving, the support is not good. It would be much better if CA had some dedicated support to customers.

We use it for scheduling of our production and development.

It helps us manage production and provides an overview of production along with a review of past performance.

The most important thing is having no downtime. We do not have any downtime for support or release changes.

It is easy to manage and customize the system. It performs well.

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.

It is 100% stable. We have no downtime. We have 24/7 production throughout the year.

It has a good source code that we administrate. We can expand the system.

It has endless scalably. We can add new Clients from zero to 9,999, and we only use 10 Clients. We can add agents up to 500,000. We can also add RAM, disk space, and CPUs. 

In the early years, when using the product, we had many phone calls with technical support. Sometimes those calls were good, sometimes they were bad. It has been getting better.

In the past, we had CA-7. CA built this mainframe schedule. Then, we have canceled the contract to CA, and decided to go with UC4. Now, UC4 is a part of CA, and now we have a contract with CA again.

Sometimes it was simple, and other times, it was very difficult. However, we had good technical support from Automic designing our system.

We had an employee from Atomic design the system for us.

I would recommend Automic with some restrictions.

We use it to automate our business processes. It is just for automation and scheduling.

We have worked about 20 years with this product. We have migrated for 20 years from CA to Automic. It is very interesting. Now, we are back to CA, because they have taken over the Automic company. The benefits also include the automation of our processes. We have worked mostly with SAP software, and we have other things in our plans. We want to automate the distribution of servers, so clients can make a request from ServiceNow. That way, companies can order servers on the internet that we normally we would build during the process for internal use. Because developers sometimes need a very fast machine for testing, you can click in ServiceNow to request a machine after two hours, then you can have a machine to plug into. At the moment, we have tried to make this a digitalized process, although we have a problem with ServiceNow.

It is easy to integrate different systems in one platform, then to automate it. You have a job, then one part of the job is going to the SAP system, and the other one is going to ServiceNow or to another system. Then, they all combine into one process.

The very special feature that we use is the connection to ServiceNow.

It does not have the same functions as the old version, which makes our developers angry because because they must work with this tool. We going forward it may not be possible.

CA has missed the product's focus. We have a lot of developers in our company, and we are experiencing the same problem. However, the CA company has not seen that developers and clients are having a problem, which is not good for the product that we do. CA took over the Automic company last year, and we do not think this was a good direction for the product.

I would like to see the rich client with the product for the developers.

It is more important for us to have a longer, stabler releases. We do not need so many features. This is a problem of bigger companies where the management wants new features, but the product has no stability after that.

It would be good to have a mobile app, where you can monitor your process, just to see if it is running or if it is blocked. The user interface on the web is not good for the developers. Features are missing, and for the client, it is too complex. At the moment, we build our own UI. We have programmers in Java API, and we have a Client which works on the mobile phone. It can start jobs, make the schedules stop and start, and see the statistics on a smartphone.

We have had issues with the performance. We have a job now in production, but the product is not very stable. ServiceNow creates problems with the Automic entry of the connector, so the stability could be a little bit better with this product.

Sometimes, we have some performance problems. I am not sure it is because of the software. It might be because we have a huge amount of objects in our system. In this case, it can happen that we often have performance problems. I am not sure if it is because of the product, it is more because of the objects in our system.

Because the product is based on the SQL Database, we have too many activations. The scalability is limited by the SQL in the background, and that is a problem. If you want to take jobs to other systems, you must build the developer our way. At the moment, we are building a new system. We have it for every country and have separated it for machines. It is mostly getting better, but the scalability to build it on new systems or to split it is not so easy.

We have technical support. We also have a connection in Austria with the support colleagues there. 

The first step: You must describe the problem. At the most, filling in a checklist.

Then: It helps to take the telephone, and talk to a technical engineer directly. 

That is why their technical support is very good.

Mostly, we contact support because our problems are very complex. Normally, we find problems that they have never knew about before. We have new technology and build actions on the automation system, then we find objects which can work with those actions, because we have technical limitations. 

We have a contact within the support, and also with a freelance in Austria. We have worked together with several people to find a solution for this new philosophy. Automic states you should build everything with actions and take multiple actions with business processes. However, not all objects are usable for actions that we see.

If you would have to start all your jobs manually, it would cost you a lot of time and money.

You do not need any humans to start jobs, so you can save a lot of money.

From the bad products, the Automic is the best. All products in the market are not good since they are simple workload scheduling. There are some things are missing in the Automic product, which our management does not see.

I would recommend using Automic.

Our primary use case is release automation. 

We did a PoC last month, and are planning on probably implementing the product.

We have seen a cost improvement from it.

It is a way to test the system from production, which is nice.

It is very difficult to migrate. We want to buy one package. The release automation should be in one package.

It is a stable product. 

It is a scalable product. It is a very strong instrument for job scaling.

The technical support has been good with quick responses. Their last response was for the product license. It was delivered within two days.

We were not previously using another solution.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

We did not evaluate anyone else.

It is a nice product. We have been looking for this type of product for many years. 

The primary use case is for automation in the area of SAP, as a specific solution in time management and access control systems. We are providing for this for any of our customers who use the automation engine. It is performing well.

The product has benefited our organization. It saves time and manpower.

Process automation.

The user interface has room for improvement.

I would like to see the event engine in the next release.

It is a stable product.

It has a normal scale for working with the tool.

We use support when we make release changes. Technical support has been good to work with. They have been easier to reach now than in the past.

We did not have a previous solution, just something we built in-house. We have been using this solution for 20 years.

The initial setup was easy. We have used it for 20 years, so we set it up in a special way. We were installation number 30 for this product. We have been working with it for a long time.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: multi-platform usability.