AutoSys Workload Automation Reviews

My use case for AutoSys Workload Automation includes trading, insurance, backups, and all infrastructure-related automations. Server reboots, backups, and any system-level tasks can be automated through AutoSys Workload Automation.

The best features in AutoSys Workload Automation are its scalability and robustness. AutoSys Workload Automation can process a significant amount of jobs within a short period without delays when supported by powerful infrastructure.

It can communicate with endless agents and scan all 10,000 agent machines within minutes, updating agent statuses in the database quickly.

It is very easy to use, simple to adopt, and has excellent interfaces. From a user's perspective, it is easy to understand and use, with no long learning curves for newcomers to scheduling. They can easily adopt AutoSys Workload Automation and learn very quickly.

There are areas of AutoSys Workload Automation that have room for improvement. They are implementing good enhancements in the R24 release. The web UI needs some improvement. Cloud integrations are limited to 25 or 30 configurable plugins and integrations to the cloud. They can improve in that area.

They have separate tools, not AutoSys Workload Automation, such as Atomic and other SaaS-based solutions that can run inside the cloud. AutoSys Workload Automation can be configured in the cloud, but it requires a substantial number of VMs depending on the load. For on-premises deployment, it is a very good solution. They need to increase their footprint in the cloud and improve the web UI. They are making excellent progress in the R24 release.

I have twenty plus years of experience with AutoSys Workload Automation.

AutoSys Workload Automation is a stable solution. Its stability is excellent unless you overload your machine with unnecessary bad agents or bad logic jobs. AutoSys Workload Automation is very good, stable, scalable, and robust.

My experience with technical support from AutoSys Workload Automation has been very good. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it 8.5 to 9.

Positive

The pricing of AutoSys Workload Automation was very good when it was under Computer Associates. However, for some customers, they are changing the pricing model now. They are charging based on the number of successful job runs. Previously, it was an enterprise license with limited numbers of agents and schedulers based on the portfolio license agreement. Since Broadcom acquired it, the prices have increased. Many companies feel the same way and are looking for alternate solutions to replace AutoSys Workload Automation.

I am currently conducting research on scheduling tools including Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Stonebranch, and potentially Redwood. We are doing proof of concept evaluations currently.

I have extensive experience with AutoSys Workload Automation, having worked directly with Computer Associates. The solution is completely event-driven, operating continuously until stopped or failed. It integrates easily with IT infrastructure and is easily configurable with VCS. For high availability, AutoSys Workload Automation is excellent.

I have been working in my current field for eight years. Overall, I would rate AutoSys Workload Automation 8 out of 10.

I do not have experience with Rocket Zeke, but I know that Rocket Zeke is basically a CA7 scheduler used for mainframe. I have colleagues and friends who used to work on Zeke. It is mostly for the mainframe solutions that we use. I have seen it within IT batch solutions, supporting the IT infrastructure services.

I have worked for several solutions including Broadcom AutoSys Workload Automation, ESP, D series, and I also worked for Atomics, Atomic Workload Automation. I know a little about Appworx Workload Automation and OzRaf Dollar Universe.

We are trusted partners. I was a trusted partner. Cognizant was a trusted partner, retailer partner, and technology partner while we were working as a workload automation center of excellence. We used to work with system integrators from Broadcom and ensured that we managed customer licenses and optimized and transformed the workload solutions from 2015 to 2019. Currently, I have moved back to workload automation solutions and I am working forward with AI-based workloads and data pipelines.

AutoSys Workload Automation is a very scalable system where you can run even a million jobs in a second; it can scale.

AutoSys Workload Automation is very much scalable compared to any other tools with the solution that they have created. AutoSys Workload Automation is using version 20.4. I still need to look into the capabilities of it so that I can make best use of the tools and the capabilities.

From a CA or Broadcom product perspective, if we look at integration capabilities with systems such as ERP and CRMs, AutoSys Workload Automation is not as integrated as Control-M. Control-M is more integration-focused and it takes customer value from small to large customers. CA does not approach the market in this way; it goes in a different model. CA typically has captive clients who need a specific solution and will create that solution only if there is a budget. For example, while Apache Spark was on the market, Control-M was quick to create the integration. AutoSys Workload Automation is not as quick; it only develops based on customer requests and is said to be working on it, but it integrates closely with ERPs. It is not integrated with the full stack and falls behind current trends. The product life cycle, the integration life cycle with market advancements, is a little slow compared to some other tools. However, scalability, durability, and reliability of the tool are very high which is why most banks and Fortune companies use it, but cost is the intrusive factor.

The benefits I have seen from AutoSys Workload Automation are significant; I would say it is about ease of administration. The advantages I would mention are that AutoSys Workload Automation is a very simple tool. Ease of administration is easy; it is simple to manage, scalable, reliable, and robust. It is great for simple batch solutioning and also for service-oriented architecture frameworks. It is also very effective for new-age workloads.

AutoSys Workload Automation is not currently enabled in the AWS marketplace. I have not checked it as I recently came back to workload automation product solutions.

It is all about the strategy you take for any tool. If you own a tool, you have a market. You have to consider how you want to penetrate it and how existing customers are moving. Most AutoSys Workload Automation customers are moving because of cost; it is more cost intrusive. It is cost-agnostic because of its robustness and scalability, as no other tools can offer such robust and scalable solutions. However, it comes with a cost, and its licensing model is also a little costlier compared to customers' requirements.

If you are running a smaller organization, you do not need advanced features. It all depends on the customer requirements. I am a service provider or IT service organization member delivering services to multiple customers using batch tools, workload automation, or service-oriented architecture platform tools. For example, if I go to a small ERP vendor in the UK, they only look for an affordable tool. If I offer AutoSys Workload Automation, it is too costly for them to manage, and they cannot utilize all the capabilities.

I know Control-M is very agile and iterative. If a small customer has a requirement, they can pick it up easily, and they have strong development and sales teams to add on to their existing product solutions and what we call solution enablers and epics. Any product contains two things: market enablers and epics. If I need to add an AI agent, something specific, I can just deploy that agent. The ability to add solutions depends significantly on individual customer needs, and Control-M adapts well to requirements from existing solutions. However, Control-M has its limitations; for instance, if I want to run a million jobs, it may break, while AutoSys Workload Automation is much more reliable and has defined system break-even points. I have not physically compared Control-M and AutoSys Workload Automation in a lab, but I can say AutoSys Workload Automation is more scalable and durable compared to Control-M.

I do not have direct experience, but I know about the tools related to CA7 Workload Automation.

I rate technical support from Broadcom at 8.5.

Positive

The initial setup of AutoSys Workload Automation is easy. It does not have a SaaS solution, but they are coming up with it. The setup is straightforward, and it is easy to plug and play an on-prem solution. We can scale the same thing for multiple tenants using a single infrastructure, essentially creating our own private SaaS solution if needed.

PeerSpot has mentioned almost 20 to 30 tools. Workload automation tools scale from different levels. They start with very simple requirements: controlling, monitoring, the ability to do service-oriented architecture frameworks and full-stack solutioning, and ready integrations and automations. There are many different characteristics and attributes. Some tools highlight different characteristics and some have more prominent features in different geographies.

I rate AutoSys Workload Automation a nine out of ten.

The core purpose is for enterprise batch scheduling. For example, it involves the scheduling process and automation between multiple business units.

Autosys is one of the oldest products in the market, and it has been around for quite a long time, close to 20 to 25 years. It is quite well-designed from a very initial level. Although it is a basic application, it can support achieving the functionality of Enterprise Batch at a fundamental level. 

The product is very robust and offers multiple conditions and parameters for configuration based on my requirements. It integrates dependent applications or modules of a particular business unit, handling process sequences with Autosys. For instance, end-of-day operations require a sequence of steps that Autosys manages.

Autosys is still lagging behind some competitive products from a functionality perspective. They need to include more features in the product. It performs the basic activity and core functionality satisfactorily. However, when compared to other products in the market, it is still behind other solutions.

I have used the solution for close to 17 years now.

I do not experience stability issues. The performance is fine, and as long as there are enough system resources, I do not encounter any performance issues either.

There is a limit or cap set or recommended by the product vendor. When someone crosses the limit, it is recommended to have a new instance of that application. Scalability-wise, as long as you are within the limit of recommended numbers by the vendor, you are fine to go.

I am fine with the support I get for the product. Most of the time, if there is an issue, a knowledge base article from the support portal helps me a lot. If I require any additional support, there is a team of experienced individuals who can support me. I do not face many support issues.

Neutral

I am part of a services company that offers services to clients. As such, I do not have a direct partnership with Broadcom or its subsidiaries.

The application itself is a very simple application. It has one scheduler, a web component, and a database. How I distribute it and integrate it with the security solution is quite simple. The access control is managed by a security component that comes along with the product, and I have a core application and the database. 

This integration does not require much effort. Most of the time, it is handled as part of the installation itself. End-to-end installation takes care of everything.

There are no challenges in the sense that Autosys is a robust product with good performance. It is a product where one does not need to worry about availability or application downtime. 

Once the application is up and running, it performs very well. The only concern is when comparing it to other products on the market, it is less favorable in terms of pricing. 

There are no significant challenges that I face with Autosys, apart from the improvement needed in notifications or integrations for automation.

I do not have direct work experience with other products, but I am aware of the products currently in the market that are in Gartner's Magic Quadrant. I explore the functionality, and while I do not have direct work experience, I have some knowledge of other products in the market, their capabilities, and so on.

I will recommend Autosys. However, in the current scenario, there are better products available in the market. This is my personal feedback. I feel there are other products that provide more functionality, although I do not have comprehensive knowledge about the robustness or pricing of Autosys. 

The overall product rating is seven out of ten.

I use AutoSys to manage thousands of interfaces, which are essentially scheduled jobs, across different regions like Europe, Asia Pacific, and Latin America. These interfaces fetch data from source systems and load it into target databases. I also use AutoSys to configure jobs as interfaces to automate these processes.

AutoSys significantly reduces manual effort. If I have ten or fifteen jobs, a manual process is feasible. However, with thousands of jobs, AutoSys offers immense value by allowing reusable configurations until modifications are needed. The user-friendly UI facilitates ease of use even for new users, permitting them to understand and modify configurations with ease. Moreover, AutoSys provides excellent security features to define user roles for reading, writing, and administration.

The monitoring aspect needs improvement. As a consumer, I would benefit from an automated monitoring solution or APIs to make the process more convenient. Providing APIs or a plug-and-play tool would be extremely useful.

I have been using AutoSys for workload automation since 2017.

AutoSys is more than ninety percent stable, experiencing issues only during global server outages.

The scalability is poor because I cannot use it for all automation solutions. Other solutions like GitHub offer better scalability for various applications.

Customer service is fifty-fifty. There have been instances where it took up to seven days just to get an initial response.

Neutral

The initial setup is complex. Although the documentation provided is comprehensive, challenges may still arise, especially with security certifications. The installation process can be time-consuming.

One or two IT professionals are usually required for the installation process.

AutoSys offers a return on investment primarily with resource savings. It reduces the need for a large team to monitor thousands of jobs.

The solution is costly. The pricing is based on the number of users, which for me, translates to approximately $120,000 to $130,000 for a license period of two to three years.

I would always prefer GitHub over AutoSys due to its scalability and cost-effectiveness. GitHub supports a wider range of applications and offers a strong support community.

Overall, I would rate AutoSys Workload Automation at six out of ten. The licensing cost is high compared to alternatives like GitHub. Although it is above average, improvements in monitoring features and API integrations could enhance its usability.

AutoSys is the default non-mainframe scheduling tool used across the bank.

AutoSys Workload Automation was implemented to centralize the control of all our diverse business and infrastructure processes at the bank.

We rely on AutoSys Workload Automation to manage hundreds of diverse processes, ranging from IT-based backups and maintenance tasks to a wide variety of customer service applications used by the bank. Most of the processes we automate using AutoSys are complex.

It is easy to manage complex workloads using AutoSys Workload Automation.

AutoSys Workload Automation has helped reduce our workload failure rates across multiple cloud environments. While it's difficult to quantify the exact percentage reduction, a system outage would cause significant issues for hundreds of application teams and incur billions in costs. Automation levels vary by area, ranging from 100 percent to 50 or 20 percent. Overall, we've achieved a significant improvement in workload reliability.

It enables our staff to save time to focus on other tasks. It's running on tens of thousands of servers. So the hours we save are in the thousands.

It helps us improve our compliance processes. For example, it ensures the bank meets its obligations for tasks like backups and timely processing of market-critical activities.

The tasks we have automated would require hundreds of people to complete manually, resulting in significant operational cost savings.

We use AutoSys Workload Automation for automating and orchestration processes across legacy and modern systems. Our ability to observe the automation across multiple cloud environments using AutoSys is adequate and continually improving.

The most valuable aspects of AutoSys Workload Automation are its performance, scalability, and ease of getting started for new users.  AutoSys Workload Automation has improved their upgrade process. It is easier now than it used to be.

The visibility and control features are somewhat limited. This is a recognized weakness, but thee vendor is currently revamping the user interface to address it. While the current UI is a bit outdated, it's undergoing improvement.

AutoSys Workload Automation has some areas for improvement, particularly in housekeeping and product maintenance. These tasks are currently quite manual and labor-intensive for our team. Additionally, the reporting and forecasting functionalities could be more robust.

One area for improvement with AutoSys Workload Automation is that it comprises several distinct tools configured to work together. This necessitates familiarity with multiple tools for effective solution management. Consequently, it can sometimes lack a sense of cohesiveness as a unified solution.

I've been using AutoSys Workload Automation for one year in my current role but for over 25 years throughout my career.

I would rate the stability of AutoSys Workload Automation nine out of ten. We occasionally encounter minor bugs, but critical issues that impact the core functionality of the product are rare. I sleep soundly knowing the system is reliable.

AutoSys Workload Automation's ability to scale and handle large volumes of data is extremely good.

I would rate the scalability of AutoSys Workload Automation nine out of ten.

The technical support is adequate, but there's room for improvement. We've observed that the quality of initial support contacts, likely handled by level one support, hasn't demonstrably improved over the past year. Additionally, escalating to the appropriate level of support can sometimes be a frustrating process.

Neutral

The return on investment would be very high because doing things manually without this product would be extremely expensive.

I would rate AutoSys Workload Automation eight out of ten.

From a maintenance perspective, large solutions like AutoSys Workload Automation, which are in constant use, accumulate obsolete and outdated elements. This necessitates a significant investment of manual effort from our team to remove them, as the product itself lacks automated cleanup functions that span all of its different constituent components. An automated solution for this task would be highly beneficial.

We have AutoSys Workload Automation hosted in the UK. But the workloads are scheduled across the UK and in different areas of the world as well. We have around 3,000 users.

I recommend doing a proof of concept to understand how AutoSys Workload Automation works compared to its competitors. While it operates slightly differently from most other tools in the market, a POC will help you get familiar with its functionality. Once you've completed the POC, you'll likely find that AutoSys is easy to set up and use.

I think it can be used across all industries.

The design is simple, and the product is easy to use.

Indication is better to run web services according to get this outbox ready.

It has monitoring and reporting tools from the product itself.

AutoSys Workload Automation is an event-based scheduler that integrates with events.

From an orchestrator perspective, it simplifies your workflow and job flow.

A better and more improved UI would be beneficial.

I have been using AutoSys Workload Automation for nearly twenty years.

It is a scalable solution.

They are quite experienced people who are handling the product.

Positive

I'm a reseller and partner who does the implementation.

It is reasonably priced compared to the market.

The product is still within the Symantec family.

People can request to run it through self-service options.

AutoSys Workload Automation does not perform performance tuning, monitoring, or management.

It is quite complete for most customers who want job scheduling solutions.

The documentation is very good.

I rate AutoSys Workload Automation 8 out of 10.

Currently, we're just giving support to the client environment. They already have the AutoSys setup there.

Our client uses the solution for insurance purposes. Most of the jobs are command jobs, FTP jobs. This is the current use case. In the systems, they use some of the task applications, so in some of the SAP applications, for example, they use AutoSys.

The solution has been stable. 

There are no issues with scaling. 

The reporting system, currently, could be better. In the reporting system, currently, if you want to see or generate the job dependency, you can have a flowchart right now that shows job flows. We can see from the job flow in that graphic representation, however, I would like to see them work more on that, maybe, to make it better and more robust. We'd like more details about the job success versus failure. Right now, we just get statistics. We'd like something that generates job names along with the accounting. There also needs to be more customized reporting. It would help a lot. 

The solution could use more monitoring. 

I've been using the solution for almost one year. 

The stability has been good in my experience. I don't recall dealing with bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and the performance is good. 

You can scale the product. There are no issues. The only thing is, in terms of the number of machines you need to add, agents will need to be installed. For those who wish to scale, maybe the licensing with the number of agents, maybe constraints are not that good. However, it can scale.

We don't deal with technical support. If a client has any problems, they can contact AutoSys support in case of issues.

The customer takes care of the admin role and the installation. We just take care of the scheduling part. We do not take part in the implementation process.

It doesn't take much to maintain the solution. However, we are not involved in the maintenance aspect. 

I'm not sure what the exact pricing is. I don't know if it is expensive or reasonable. 

I did not evaluate other vendors. I didn't work on the Control-M kind of thing, so I cannot compare this with the other similar software. I only have experience with AutoSys over the last year. 

We're partners.

My current role in the project is to manage the project, rather than the day-to-day operations. So, I manage the offshore team here, so I'm not 100% into the technical role.

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I use AutoSys Workload Automation for enterprise batch scheduling, so for banking and retail values, I have multiple modules of applications. AutoSys Workload Automation is used to schedule and process jobs or automated triggers 24/7. The tool is for cross-functional and cross-application dependency management purposes.

To me, what's most valuable in AutoSys Workload Automation is its robustness and quickness. The tool can trigger jobs within a few milliseconds, and it can handle large volumes of jobs.

An area for improvement in AutoSys Workload Automation is that it lacks advanced features or advanced built-in functionalities found in competitors, for example, an advanced workflow feature. Even the handling or notification from AutoSys Workload Automation isn't the best in the industry. Other products have very good workflow-related functionalities such as ActiveBatch that's missing in AutoSys Workload Automation, so I wish the tool had those features.

I've been working with AutoSys Workload Automation for more than ten years now.

AutoSys Workload Automation is ninety-nine percent stable. In a year, it's rare for my team to see issues with it, and that's even mostly due to the infrastructure. As a product, AutoSys Workload Automation is very stable, and robustness is one of its strengths.

AutoSys Workload Automation is a scalable product, and my company also has the facility to expand it with multiple instances.

We contacted the technical support team for AutoSys Workload Automation to request some enhancements. They went ahead and improved AutoSys Workload Automation based on our request. My rating for the support team is nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup for AutoSys Workload Automation is very straightforward. It's very simple, and my team didn't have much issues with setting up the tool. The deployment takes less than an hour if you have proper access, and with everything in place.

I don't have information on the exact licensing cost of AutoSys Workload Automation because that's managed by the tools and financing teams. For agents, it's close to $4,00, but for the server setup, it's usually a one-time license initially, and it's AMC which is paid every year and comes close to $8,000 to $10,000.

I evaluated Tidal.

I'm a solution architect, so I implement and support AutoSys Workload Automation.

I'm working with the latest version of AutoSys Workload Automation which is R12.

My team didn't have any problems maintaining AutoSys Workload Automation. There's no issue as long as the server and infrastructure are kept in place and as long as the latest version of the product is running.

Most of the customers who still use AutoSys Workload Automation have been using it for a very long time, for example, ten or twenty years. Newer customers probably go for cheaper solutions such as Tidal because it has more capabilities, aside from being more affordable, versus AutoSys Workload Automation.

My advice to anyone looking into implementing AutoSys Workload Automation is that the decision should be based on the use case, what you're looking for, and your skill set. You should have a resource who has good knowledge of AutoSys Workload Automation because learning the tool also takes a bit of time. It all depends on the use case. For example, for banking or for a customer who has more file transfer requirements, AutoSys Workload Automation would be the best solution.

I would rate AutoSys Workload Automation as seven out of ten because new products do much better in the automation niche compared to AutoSys Workload Automation.

We use it to run different jobs across different servers.

The initial setup is easy.

It's a stable product.

The solution can scale. 

There should be easier migrations from a different bus scheduler. Prior to this workload, we were using BMC control M and the migration was really hard. We had to manually create the jobs and there was no sort of automation for the migration. Workload Automation could improve the handling of file transfer jobs. Compared to control M, control M allows multiple file transfers. It can have five types of files that can be transferred. They have different file formats or different sizes. You can configure it in control M. Here, you only have one and three for file transfer. A lot of times you also encounter issues with SSL crypto in conflict on certain jobs. Basically, the newer servers have newer security measures and currently, the product is not compatible with them.

I've used the solution for seven years. 

The solution is stable. there are no bugs or glitches. It does not crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

We had a few issues, however, the issues were more on the infrastructure rather than with the application itself.

We have 60 people using the solution.

It's scalable. It can expand as needed. 

We've used technical support. We find them very helpful and responsive and are satisfied with the level of service we get.

Positive

I find it simple to set up. However, the fear really is understanding how Workload Automation handles jobs as compared to control M. They have similarities, however, they handle schedules and jobs differently.

At the moment, we have a team of two or three handling the support for the product.

We handled the implementation ourselves, although we did request an overview of the installation and setup process. 

If you looked at the client price, I'd rate the cost five out of five.I heard from recent talks with support that they removed the licensing scheme that we had before. Maybe the rating would be lower now. Before they had this unlimited installation of agents across and service. They've since removed that scheme.

We did not evaluate other solutions. It was the client's position to use this product as they were offered a good deal. At that time, we were using control M and I was initially hesitant due to the challenges I saw in terms of how the product handles the jobs. The client already decided on the solution and we just had to learn to love it. 

We're using the solution at the request of a client. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I work as an engineer in an enterprise company. We have used AutoSys Workload Automation for a long time for batch processing and other automation things.

AutoSys Workload Automation has saved us a lot of time for batch processing and bad jobs. Earlier, if someone had an issue with the application, they would open a ticket, and we would take the ticket and work on the issue. AutoSys Workload Automation can pick up a ticket raised by someone, resolve the issue, and close the ticket. So, it saves a lot of human intervention.

The most valuable feature of AutoSys Workload Automation is batch processing.

There is a recently made change in AutoSys Workload Automation's subscription model. The solution does not have a friendly subscription model because it forces users to take a five-year subscription simultaneously, charging millions of dollars. Hence, our managers are looking for alternatives to AutoSys Workload Automation.

I have been using AutoSys Workload Automation for five years.

I rate AutoSys Workload Automation ten out of ten for stability.

I rate AutoSys Workload Automation ten out of ten for scalability.

Overall, I rate AutoSys Workload Automation ten out of ten.