Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

ActiveBatch by Redwood vs JSCAPE by Redwood comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

ActiveBatch by Redwood
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
14th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (28th), Workload Automation (14th)
JSCAPE by Redwood
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
10th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Managed File Transfer (MFT) category, the mindshare of ActiveBatch by Redwood is 2.5%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of JSCAPE by Redwood is 4.4%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Managed File Transfer (MFT) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
JSCAPE by Redwood4.4%
ActiveBatch by Redwood2.5%
Other93.1%
Managed File Transfer (MFT)
 

Featured Reviews

AS
Application Administrator Lead at Bluestem
Manages thousands of jobs daily and reduces downtime through secondary node support
The current feedback I receive from my end users regarding ActiveBatch by Redwood highlights issues with the tabs or panes during job modification. When the next user monitors it, they need to close the pane or job and reopen it to see the changes reflected. If the end user makes an update, it will not be visible unless they start from the beginning again. Implementing a refresh button would be helpful for real-time updates when the end user needs to see changes immediately. We currently face issues with the web console of ActiveBatch by Redwood. When users operate through an RDP session, every user has their own ActiveBatch by Redwood application. However, on the web console, users encounter daily activity issues where the job instances do not appear or update correctly, and they cannot view the latest logs. This issue is only present on the web console, as the application itself works without any problems. ActiveBatch by Redwood can be improved by adding more features, as we are not currently handling cloud-based applications like S3 buckets and Azure. Connecting to these cloud platforms would be a helpful enhancement.
Akshatha Ramesh - PeerSpot reviewer
Junior Business Analyst at EFI
Good automation, no complex coding, and high-level data encryption
When it comes to performance and scalability, JSCAPE is a highly reliable software, however, I would suggest a few improvements: 1. The documentation needs a revamp for a better understanding of the features of the tool. 2. Customer service can be offered on call or chat. 3. The initial setup is time-consuming; it could use a video tutorial. 4. UI can be improved in terms of look and feel. 5. Documentation should be provided for a majority of newly released features as these can be difficult for a layman to use without proper instructions.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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."
"Error Handling is one of the best standout features of ActiveBatch."
"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."
"ActiveBatch helped us automate and schedule routine tasks such as data backups, file transfers, database updates, and report generation, which frees IT staff to focus on other studies."
"The best feature that ActiveBatch by Redwood offers is the user interface."
"Approximately ~20 hours of manual effort have been reduced to ~5 hours with the help of ActiveBatch."
"ActiveBatch by Redwood has positively impacted my organization by efficiently managing a significant volume of data and workflow between our database and applications on the web browser."
"It has helped with scheduling complex jobs with simple scripts."
"It keeps a clear record of all the file transfers that take place, the person who initiated them, and the outcome of the execution."
"It is a reliable and easy-to-operate platform for secure file transfers."
"One of the standout features of this particular tool is its automation capabilities."
"The product's most valuable feature is the high availability clustering."
"Triggers are also something that is useful as they automate the use of boilerplate code."
"Automating and managing the file transfer using JSCAPE has decreased the manual interventions necessary and increased the organization's efficiency and productivity."
"It is platform-independent and can flawlessly work on any operating system using the latest security standards."
"It helped in confidentially transferring files with a vast number of servers available with no external applications required."
 

Cons

"The help center and documentation are not that helpful."
"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."
"Any product is going to have some room for improvement, no matter what. I see the company has already ventured into AWS and they're constantly trying to improve the managed file transfer which they have recently improvised. I think they bought a software called JSCAPE and they're trying to improve it, which is good. I am not sure if JSCAPE would be part of the base product but currently, you have to buy a separate license for it, which doesn't make sense. If it was Microsoft, ServiceNow, or integrating with other software vendors, I would understand but JSCAPE is now in-house and I'm not sure if they can justify having a separate license for JSCAPE. I would probably expect them to be packaging JSCAPE into the base product. They did switch over from a perpetual license model to a subscription model, which hurt the company a little bit. Nobody is offering the perpetual model anymore. As long as the transition is fair for both the companies, I think it should be fine and not burn us out."
"Some improvements can be made to the user interface."
"The product should be improved by providing a customization option."
"They could provide an easier installation guide or technical support to the organizations during the installation process."
"They should offer pricing that is more affordable."
"The UI could potentially offer a more refined and user-friendly experience, fostering smoother interactions and facilitating easier navigation for users engaging with the application."
"Support for more complicated workflows, such as conditional logic or branching, could be added to allow users to create more advanced automation processes."
"Enhancing the user interface would make it more accessible and appealing to the new users and it will definitely enhance the user experience."
"The GUI has to be enhanced."
"The initial setup is a bit hectic during the installation."
"JSCAPE ensures data integrity. You know that the file has been transferred and on which date, as we provide timestamps."
"Setup is time-consuming."
"Providing initial guidance would help new users to understand the UI."
"The price is too high and the product line is too complex."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I like ActiveBatch Workload Automation's licensing model because they're not holding you down on an agentless model or agent model, where every server needs to have an agent. That's the main selling point of the solution and I hope they stay that way."
"I don't think we've ever had a problem with the pricing or licensing. Even the maintenance fees are very much in line. They are not excessive. I think for the support that you get, you get a good value for your money. It's the best value on the market."
"If you compare ActiveBatch licensing to Control-M, you're looking at $50,000 as opposed to millions."
"ActiveBatch is currently redesigning themselves. In the past, they were a low cost solution for automation. They had a nice tool that was very inexpensive. With their five-year plan, they will be more enhancement-driven, so they're trying to improve their software, customer service, and the way that their customers get information from them. In doing that, they're raising the price of their base system. They changed from one pricing model to another, which has caused some friction between ActiveBatch and us. We're working through that right now with them. That's one of the reasons why we're why we were evaluating other software packages."
"The pricing was fair. There are additional costs for the plugins. We have the standard licensing fees for different pieces, then we have the plugins which were add-ons. However, we expected that."
"Currently, we are paying approximately $7,000 yearly, which includes support."
"It allows for lower operational overhead."
"The price was fairly in line with other automation tools. I don't think it's exorbitantly expensive, relatively speaking."
"The software is expensive compared to other vendors."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions are best for your needs.
880,745 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Insurance Company
8%
Retailer
7%
Performing Arts
7%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
8%
Performing Arts
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise47
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise35
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ActiveBatch Workload Automation?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for ActiveBatch by Redwood has been great; we recently renewed our license, and it was a smooth process without any issues.
What needs improvement with ActiveBatch Workload Automation?
I believe ActiveBatch by Redwood could be improved because the UI could be modernized.
What is your primary use case for ActiveBatch Workload Automation?
My main use case for ActiveBatch by Redwood is file processing. I use ActiveBatch by Redwood for file processing for debit card transactions.
What do you like most about JSCAPE?
The product's most valuable feature is the high availability clustering.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for JSCAPE?
I rate the product’s pricing a three out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.
What needs improvement with JSCAPE?
JSCAPE ensures data integrity. You know that the file has been transferred and on which date, as we provide timestamps. We handle cybersecurity ourselves with proprietary technologies for the netwo...
 

Also Known As

ActiveBatch
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Informatica, D&H, ACES, PrimeSource, Sub-Zero Group, SThree, Lamar Advertising, Subway, Xcel Energy, Ignite Technologies, Whataburger, Jyske Bank, Omaha Children's Hospital
BAE Systems, ABN AMRO, Boeing, Bank of America, Dassault Falcon Jet Corp, Bank of Montreal, General Dynamics, Bank of Taiwan, General Electric, Citibank Canada, Honeywell, CreditSuisse, L-3 Communications, Columbia University, Harvard Medical School, Kaplan Higher Education, Northwest Christian College, Kaiser Permanente, Share Builder, Procter & Gamble, TransUnion, Roche Diagnostics, BASF, 1-800-Contacts, Canon, AMPM, Daimler AG, Coach, Edwards Brothers, USB Financial Services
Find out what your peers are saying about ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. JSCAPE by Redwood and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
880,745 professionals have used our research since 2012.