We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch by Redwood and IBM Sterling File Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Progress Software, BMC, IBM and others in Managed File Transfer (MFT)."I found ActiveBatch Workload Automation to be a very good scheduling tool. What I like best about it is that it has very less downtime when managing many complex scheduling workflows, so I'm very impressed with ActiveBatch Workload Automation."
"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."
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"For developers, it is easy to orchestrate the workflows and the integration has been very easy."
"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"
"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."
"It is very useful in sending confidential files through FPP servers."
"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."
"I have found almost all the features valuable."
"It's highly configurable, there is no need for standalone scripting."
"It offers easy utilization of resources for smooth transfers."
"Very high functionality with the ability to plug in your own code."
"This product has been a leader in the field of secure file exchange."
"The most valuable aspect is that it has good functionality."
"Some improvements can be made to the user interface."
"There are some issues with this version and finding the jobs that it ran. If you're looking at 1,000 different jobs, it shows based on the execution time, not necessarily the run time. So, if there was a constraint waiting, you may be looking for it in the wrong time frame. Plus, with thousands of jobs showing up and the way it pages output jobs, sometimes you end up with multiple pages on the screen, then you have to go through to find the specific job you're looking for. On the opposite side, you can limit the daily activity screen to show only jobs that failed or jobs currently running, which will shrink that back down. However, we have operators who are looking at the whole nightly cycle to make sure everything is there and make sure nothing got blocked or was waiting. Sometimes, they have a hard time finding every item within the list."
"The documentation is very limited, and it can be improved."
"The user interface can be improved so that it is more appealing and accessible to new users."
"I have faced struggles to understand, set up the tool, and implement it in my early days as a new user."
"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."
"Between version 10 and version 12 there was a change. In version 10, they had each object in its own folder. But on the back end, they saw it at the root level. So when we moved over to version 12, everything was in the same area mixed together. It was incredibly difficult and we actually had to create our own folders and move those objects—like schedules, jobs, user accounts—and manually put those into folders, whereas the previous version already had it."
"A cloud option is not provided as a free feature, making it a costly solution for smaller organizations."
"IBM is advising not to use the IT translate anymore but this is going to be an extra cost to the customer to use the alternative."
"Not a ten because it's a bit complex, not so simple. It's one product but there are many screens."
"The admin console needs some work."
"Too many features; UI is not good."
"I would like to see auto-deployment without service disruptions."
"The API capabilities could be expanded to make integration more versatile."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 5th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 35 reviews while IBM Sterling File Gateway is ranked 3rd in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 6 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while IBM Sterling File Gateway is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Sterling File Gateway writes "Easy to use with good validation and monitoring of the file transfer". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs and VisualCron, whereas IBM Sterling File Gateway is most compared with MOVEit, Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct, Aspera Managed File Transfer, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer and Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT.
See our list of best Managed File Transfer (MFT) vendors.
We monitor all Managed File Transfer (MFT) 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.
