We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch Workload Automation and Automic Workload Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly regarded for its flexibility, simplicity, and ready-made tasks. It provides live monitoring, automatic scheduling, and effective resource management. Automic Workload Automation receives acclaim for its strength, scalability, and straightforward integration. It enables control over various operating systems and products, offering a wide array of features and a user-friendly interface.
ActiveBatch Workload Automation can be enhanced in areas such as managed file transfer, licensing, cloud aspect, user interface, reliability of triggers, monitoring dashboard, price, documentation, support, and integration capabilities. Automic Workload Automation requires improvement in automation sets, language support, functionality, interface, web-based edition, file transfer, pricing, and support.
Service and Support: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has been praised for its customer service, specifically its helpful and responsive technical support. However, there are concerns about the service model and availability of the hotline. Automic Workload Automation has received mixed reviews, with some customers appreciating quick response times and helpful knowledge articles. However, others have faced challenges in reaching support and experienced delays in issue resolution.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is straightforward and uncomplicated, although it can be slightly challenging when implementing it on various operating systems. The initial setup for Automic Workload Automation can be time-consuming and intricate, taking anywhere from one to five days.
Pricing: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly regarded for its flexible and reasonably priced setup cost. Users find it to be competitive when compared to other tools. Automic Workload Automation has experienced pricing changes. While some users view it as expensive, they still consider it affordable in comparison to similar solutions.
ROI: Active Workload Automation has been highly regarded for its ability to generate positive financial outcomes, resulting in a notable increase in net revenue ranging from 20% to 30%. Automic Workload Automation did not provide much ROI for users and was perceived as an added expenditure.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is the preferred choice when compared to Automic Workload Automation. Users appreciate ActiveBatch for its straightforward setup process and intuitive interface, while Automic is acknowledged to have different degrees of complexity. ActiveBatch is also praised for its versatility, offering prebuilt jobs and a user-friendly configuration.
"We are able to integrate it into multiple third-party tools like email, backup, tracking systems, SharePoint, Slack alerts, etc."
"We leverage the solution's native integrations regularly. We have to get files from a remote server outside the organization, and even send things outside the organization. We use a lot of its file manipulation and SFTP functionality for contacting remote servers."
"ActiveBatch's Self-Service Portal allows our business units to run and monitor their own workloads. They can simply run and review the logs, but they can't modify them. It increases their productivity because they are able to take care of things on their own. It saves us time from having to rerun the scripts, because the business units can just go ahead and log in and and rerun it themselves."
"What ActiveBatch allows you to do is develop a more efficient process. It gave me visibility into all my jobs so I could choose which jobs to run in parallel. This is much easier than when I have to try to do it through cron for Windows XP, where you really can't do things in parallel and know what is going on."
"The product offers a centralized platform for managing activities across many environments, applications, etc."
"Error Handling is one of the best standout features of ActiveBatch."
"Since I started using this product, I have been able to easily track everything as it mainly monitors, alerts, and looks after all the services - even across platform scheduling - which has helped me immensely."
"The REST API adapters and native integrations for integrating and orchestrating the software stack are very flexible."
"Automic is perfect to work with for a lot of job loads."
"We use it in every aspect of our IT operations, and the scalability is very good."
"The workflow allows us to integrate multiple applications into one flow and come up with a business result."
"We have seen big improvements in automation and automated tasks allowing our people to work on more important things for the company, as well as getting financial data quicker."
"Automation helps us. It makes our lives easier. Anything that can be automated is automated."
"The user interface is very simple and straightforward."
"It integrates well with the CICD pipeline."
"Number one, A+, is the scripting language, and the ability to go in, and take an already robust, consistent, strong tool, and turn it into an incredibly scalable, flexible tool, that you can literally do anything you want to with."
"There are very few documents that provide us with detailed information on the troubleshooting of errors that occur during integration with the existing environment."
"An area for improvement in ActiveBatch Workload Automation is its interface or GUI. It could be a little better. There isn't any additional feature I'd like to see in the tool, except for the GUI, everything looks good."
"As more organizations are moving towards a cloud-based infrastructure, ActiveBatch could incorporate more capabilities that support popular cloud platforms, such as AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud."
"Whenever there is an overload, we are seeing crashes happening."
"Some of the advanced features in the user interface are a bit confusing even after referring to the documents."
"The monitoring dashboard could have been more user-friendly so that in the monitoring dashboard itself we can see the total number of jobs created in the system and how many were currently active/scheduled/chained."
"The thing I've noticed the most is the Help function. It's very difficult, at times, to find examples of how to do something. The Help function will explain what the tool does, but we're not a Windows shop at the data warehouse. Our data warehouse jobs actually run on Linux servers. Finding things for Linux-based solutions is not as easy as it is for Windows-based solutions. I would like to see more examples, and more non-Windows examples as well, in the Help."
"They could provide an easier installation guide or technical support to the organizations during the installation process."
"The stability is not as good as it was in former years. Stability has gone down from version to version."
"It would be better if it was easier to view the automated processes."
"The direction in which the UI is going is concerning to me. It does not offer the security context we would need to implement future versions. While I see benefit in the Web UI, the security it would lack in separating a user's experience from an administrator's experience is an issue for us. MFA functionality is required since we're dealing with connectivity to the POS and for PCI/SOX compliance."
"It has a very complicated interface, which could be made to be more user-friendly."
"I would like to see the event engine in the next release."
"The search is sometimes a little bit slow."
"Most of our issues are related to the system, not the job scheduling, such as, bugs and unexpected downtime of the application or database."
"I hope going forward they will make some changes to the documentation. I hope they will write into the documentation what has changed and what the new names are. For example, some features have a new name. I hope they will make a translation the names in the old version to the names in the newer version."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Automic Workload Automation writes "A tool requiring an easy setup phase that provides its users with flexibility and flow chart visibility ". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, VisualCron and Rocket Zena, whereas Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Dollar Universe Workload Automation. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Automic Workload Automation report.
See our list of best Workload Automation vendors.
We monitor all Workload Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
