We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch by Redwood and AWS Step Functions based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Workload Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Managing the workload and monitoring the tasks were very difficult with manual interventions. Now, by using ActiveBatch, the process is automated and it runs tasks on a scheduled basis."
"Since we are no longer waiting for an operator to see that a job is finished, we have changed our daily cycle from running in eight hours down to about five. We had a third shift-operator retire and that position was never refilled."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to trigger workflows, one after another, based on success, without having to worry about overlapping workflows. The ability to integrate our BI, analytics, and our data quality jobs is also valuable"
"One of the most valuable features is the job templates. If we need to create an FTP job, we just drag over the FTP template and fill out the requirements using the variables that ActiveBatch uses. And that makes it reusable. We can create a job once but use it for many different clients."
"ActiveBatch has reduced work by providing automated workflows across several different applications."
"The REST API adapters and native integrations for integrating and orchestrating the software stack are very flexible."
"It is very useful in sending confidential files through FPP servers."
"The Jobs Library has been a tremendous asset. For the most, that's what we use. There are some outliers, but we pretty much integrate those Jobs Library steps throughout the process, whether it's REST calls, FTP processes, or file copies and moves... That has helped us to build end-to-end workflows."
"One can rate all the calls and that is a good feature."
"The solution is stable...The solution is easy to scale."
"What I like the most about Amazon Step Functions is how easy it is to use."
"It's a general solution that you can adapt to your own needs and is simple to use. We like that it can be integrated with everything in the AWS suite, and that the creation of the pipeline can be done using the graphical user interface."
"The number of historical events is great."
"AWS Step Functions acts as a high-level layer, allowing us to seamlessly integrate with microservices."
"The integration capability is easy, whereas building state machines is tricky."
"It's Amazon, it's scalable."
"Whenever there is an overload, we are seeing crashes happening."
"The documentation is very limited, and it can be improved."
"The reporting needs improvement. There is a real need for the ability to generate audit reports on the fly. It needs to be a lot easier than what I can do right now. This is a major item for me."
"One thing I've noticed is that navigation can be difficult unless you are familiar with the structure that we have in place. If someone else had to look at our ActiveBatch console and find a job, they might not know where to find it."
"Some improvements can be made to the user interface."
"The interface is not that user-friendly and is a little tough to navigate."
"A nice thing to have would be the ability to comfortably pass variables from one job to another. That was one of the things that I found difficult."
"There is this back and forth, where ActiveBatch says, "Your Oracle people should be dealing with this," and Oracle people say, "No, we don't know anything about ActiveBatch." Then, it all falls back on me as to what happens. Nobody is taking responsibility. This is the biggest failing for ActiveBatch."
"The interface can sometimes feel limited, as we're unable to see what AWS is running behind the scenes."
"The solution's pricing could be cheaper. It is cheaper than Airflow."
"The solution's data size limit can be improved."
"It is hard to coordinate the declaratory language."
"The price and support are areas with shortcomings where the solution needs to improve."
"The pricing of the solution can be improved."
"I would like to see more data transformation features in Amazon Step Functions like additional operators and logic."
"Setup took about one day. We had some errors to understand in the beginning, but now everything is working good."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while AWS Step Functions is ranked 15th in Workload Automation with 9 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while AWS Step Functions is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of AWS Step Functions writes "Simplifies complex task automation and enhances development workflows while offering user-friendly interface, seamless scalability and efficient workflow orchestration". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs and VisualCron, whereas AWS Step Functions is most compared with Camunda, IBM BPM, Apache Airflow, Pega BPM and Oracle BPM. See our AWS Step Functions vs. ActiveBatch by Redwood 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.
