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 (27th), Workload Automation (14th)
JSCAPE by Redwood
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
13th
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 February 2026, in the Managed File Transfer (MFT) category, the mindshare of ActiveBatch by Redwood is 2.4%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of JSCAPE by Redwood is 4.2%, 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 Redwood4.2%
ActiveBatch by Redwood2.4%
Other93.4%
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

"The user interface is really incredible."
"ActiveBatch can automate predictable, repeatable processes very well. There is no real trick to what ActiveBatch does. ActiveBatch does exactly what you would expect a scheduling piece of software to do. It does it in a timely manner and does it with very little outside interference and fanfare. It runs when it is supposed to, and I don't have to jump through a bunch of hoops to double check it."
"It has helped with scheduling complex jobs with simple scripts."
"ActiveBatch by Redwood has positively impacted our organization because we are able to process files very effectively."
"By implementing a sophisticated scheduling mechanism, the system allows for the precise triggering of jobs at user-selected frequencies, enabling a seamless and automated execution of tasks according to specified time intervals."
"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."
"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 has reduced work by providing automated workflows across several different applications."
"The product's most valuable feature is the high availability clustering."
"It keeps a clear record of all the file transfers that take place, the person who initiated them, and the outcome of the execution."
"The automation part of JSCAPE by Redwood is great because you can set up a scheduled delivery with files and be notified if the transfer was successful."
"The speed of transferring large datasets is super quick, which allows us to work on multiple tasks at a time."
"Automating and managing the file transfer using JSCAPE has decreased the manual interventions necessary and increased the organization's efficiency and productivity."
"It is easy to transfer large sets of files."
"It helped in confidentially transferring files with a vast number of servers available with no external applications required."
"Triggers are something that is very useful as they automate the use of boilerplate code, and we can define certain functionality of certain tasks also."
 

Cons

"The user interface can be improved so that it is more appealing and accessible to new users."
"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."
"I can't get the cleaning up of logs to work consistently. Right now, we are not setup correctly, and maybe it is something that I have not effectively communicated to them."
"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 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."
"The product should be improved by providing a customization option."
"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."
"The documentation is very limited, and it can be improved."
"They could create an in-depth document so that any user with little to no background can implement this and use the software effectively."
"The user interface is something that has to be worked on."
"The initial setup and configuration are time-consuming."
"Support for more complicated workflows, such as conditional logic or branching, could be added to allow users to create more advanced automation processes."
"The cost of the tool is relatively high and can pose a problem to medium and small-scale companies who are trying to overcome their on-premise server limitations."
"The GUI has to be enhanced."
"Iteratively enhancing the user interface could help with streamlining workflows to make them more intuitive and user-friendly."
"With constant software releases and updates, detailed notifications and documentation on the improvements along with the comparison of the past and present features would be helpful to understand and use it better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"If you compare ActiveBatch licensing to Control-M, you're looking at $50,000 as opposed to millions."
"The price was fairly in line with other automation tools. I don't think it's exorbitantly expensive, relatively speaking."
"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."
"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 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.
882,032 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Insurance Company
7%
Performing Arts
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
10%
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 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...
What is your primary use case for JSCAPE?
We selected JSCAPE because they have a viable product for our network service delivery. In the medical profession, people need to move files around within the industry. In manufacturing, a lot of d...
 

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: February 2026.
882,032 professionals have used our research since 2012.