AutoSys Workload Automation Reviews

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 AutoSys to run our scheduled jobs. In terms of the version, I am probably using version 14.

This type of tool is essential for a data group in terms of how we pick up data from different things and vendors, and how we set up the workflows to do all the jobs. Without it, we can't imagine how we would run all the jobs. If we need something to run on a daily basis, we can use AutoSys to fully automate it. We don't need to have a dedicated resource to look at a job and ensure that it is completed. AutoSys simplifies our life.

It is very valuable for us when we are trying to arrange or orchestrate jobs into a system. It is helpful for triggering jobs for a scheduled task.

We are trying to see if we can use this from a cloud perspective with AWS, Azure, and other clouds, but it seems that there is no cloud integration in this product. We would like to see cloud integration. We are very pleased with this solution, but we are moving our application to the cloud, and we found out that it doesn't support any cloud features. So, we are trying to find a replacement.

I've been using this solution for more than 10 years.

It is quite mature. It is pretty good.

We are using AutoSys for very large-scale deployment, and it is very scalable. It is capable of handling 10,000 jobs on a daily basis. It is very good.

We have more than a hundred users, and it is being used at the corporate level. We are trying to use something like this in the cloud. I don't think we are going to expand the usage of AutoSys because we are thinking of moving to the cloud. We are trying to see which solutions provide similar functionality but support the cloud environment.

Their support is very standardized. The application has been out there for quite a long time, and the skillset is generally available in the market.

It is a very mature product, and we require very little support. I don't remember ever contacting their customer support or client support team for any major issues or downtimes.

I have been using this solution from day one in this organization.

It depends on the experience. For me, it is very straightforward. In a simple setup, you set up a server, a database, and an agent, and you are ready to go. In a complicated setup, you have to set up high availability, virtual machines clusters, etc.

We have a dedicated group to handle all top-level applications. This is relatively straightforward for them. From planning to implementation and getting it into the production environment, it takes a month or two.

We did it ourselves. To get it rolling and to maintain it, we have a very small team with less than five people. They are just regular developers.

This product has been bought by Broadcom, and Broadcom does not have enough dedicated resources to further develop this product. I don't see any major features, versions, or functions being added to this product in the future. I don't think the vendors would be willing to spend resources on top of it.

I would rate it a nine out of 10. We really like the product and its functions. It works, and we like its stability, scalability, and robustness. It is a very reliable product, but it lacks future enhancements. We haven't heard of any cloud initiative for this product.

In our case, it's just managing the day and night jobs of banks because we are supporting several banks in Europe.

The company I'm working for is an outsourcing company who provides solutions for customers. We host their complete environment.

The features that I have found most valuable with AutoSys are that it is scalable, easy to use, fast, and always available. That's very important because if it's not steady then it's a real problem. So, at this point, we are satisfied with it.

If you do not need the latest features like cloud and compare, I would really advise using AutoSys. For future technologies, I cannot answer the question yet.

In terms of what should be in the next release, I want integration and AI and so on. I'd like easy reporting where you can compare information, for example, "that job normally takes three minutes and last time it took six minutes or 10 minutes." Then you can get the information to the engineer of which job is taking more time than normal - understanding strange behavior compared to the baseline.

I have been using AutoSys Workload Automation for nine years.

We are not using the latest version. We are planning a migration towards the latest version or a migration to another tool. Most likely, because of the lifetime of the environment that has to be supported, we will probably migrate to the latest version because it's often easier if you stay with the same product.

We have several customers at this moment and AutoSys is used by one bank. In fact, it's not like real end-users are touching the tool. It is doing its job during the night and it is only for one application including the bank application, so it's not connected to its final end users, so you scale all the toolings which are available in the bank environment. We only focus on the core banking.

The technical support is very good. If you open a case, the support is really sufficient.

AutoSys Workload Automation is really easy to install. You can install the server and an agent in about 10 minutes. It takes the agent on five clicks. Even if you have many agents to install during installation, you can pick that very easily and you also can deploy it fairly easily. In terms of the deployment, it's a nice solution.

Normally you can do it by yourself unless you're running into situations where the newest version is working slightly differently than the previous version. Sometimes you need to adopt some parameters, but they provide you sufficient support for that. The deployment can be done by one guy. One system engineer can handle the job.

AutoSys Workload Automation has a yearly subscription.

On a scale of one to ten, for the part that we are currently using, I can give AutoSys Workload Automation an eight.

I would recommend this product for other users who want to start using it depending on their needs. I'm still investigating what the new version provides in the future, based on technology, so it is difficult to answer that question.

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.

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.

It is being used for all the ETL processing and batch processing that we have in the enterprise. It is being used for automated file processing. We get the file from the mainframe.

It gives a real-time view of all the batch processing that we have. Monitoring-wise, it is really good. 

It also gives us the ability to connect different software processes.

I am not sure whether it is our limitation or a tool limitation because we haven't yet explored it, but whenever we look for different types of reporting, we have some limitations in getting those. It could be because of the way we have set it up internally in our enterprise, but it would be helpful if we can customize the reporting features and some of the alerts that can go out. When we connect enterprise systems, each one looks for a different use case, and if we can get different types of reporting, it will be helpful.

My team has been working with AutoSys for the last 10 to 15 years.

It is stable. 

It is used pretty much across all enterprise areas. We have six or seven business units with more than 10,000 people who are using this solution. Application-wise, close to 500 applications are using this solution.

We don't directly interact with their tech support. We have our own team for tech support. We are at the end-user level, and we request our team to set up our processes. 

It is straightforward once we know the process. For its maintenance, we have our own team that manages the solution. We are the end-users, so we don't get involved in its maintenance. They just tell us about the downtime on some weekends, and they take care of upgrading the solution.

We have been using it for a long time, but now we are looking at some of the cloud solutions. We are moving a lot of processes to the cloud, and the features for the cloud are being investigated.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

The most valuable features of AutoSys Workload Automation are the file transfer protocol and file watcher. The solution has a user-friendly user interface. It is very simple to use. You have a scope of all your jobs, jobs are what you call tasks that you will automate in the solution. It lets you monitor everything in these jobs.

AutoSys Workload Automation could improve in the Linux environment. The previous versions of the AutoSys Workload Automation let you take the profile of the user that you were using to run the tasks that you're going to automate, but in the latest versions, you can't do that, you need to make more definitions and it's a little bit difficult. It was easier in the previous versions.

In an upcoming release, AutoSys Workload Automation could include more integrations capabilities. I have seen other tools that have native integrations with other tools, such as Docker and other services in the cloud. They are not taking this into account in AutoSys Workload Automation.

I have been using AutoSys Workload Automation for approximately two years.

We have approximately 15 administrations who use this solution, but the tool is made to work for all the infrastructure of the organization, we could have more users.

The technical support is great, they have helped us a lot.

The initial configuration of AutoSys Workload Automation was simple. When you need to make a migration from previous versions or from other tools, it's easy. There are some complexities, but it is not something that is impossible, it can be very simple.

I rate AutoSys Workload Automation an eight out of ten.

We are using AutoSys Workload Automation for parent jobs and can create scripts for automation.

The most valuable feature of AutoSys Workload Automation is user-friendliness. If someone has some knowledge of the tool they can use it.

It would be helpful to be able to monitor and manage workload windows so we could minimize downstream applications. This would allow us easier access to the applications.

I have been using AutoSys Workload Automation for approximately seven years.

The solution is stable. 

We are able to view reports at any point in time

AutoSys Workload Automation is scalable.

We plan to increase our usage of the solution.

I have used the support from the vendor.

I have used other solutions similar to AutoSys Workload Automation. 

We can do the process with a script and it does not take more than 10 minutes. The environment can play a role in how long it will take and what type of script we need to use.

We paid to use the solution monthly.

When comparing this tool to others it is far better.

I recommend this solution to others. 

I rate AutoSys Workload Automation an eight out of ten.