No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

ActiveBatch by Redwood vs Pipefy comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Process Automation
16th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), Workload Automation (9th)
Pipefy
Ranking in Process Automation
28th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
4.0
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Agentic Automation (11th), AI Agent Builders (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of ActiveBatch by Redwood is 1.2%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Pipefy is 0.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
ActiveBatch by Redwood1.2%
Pipefy0.4%
Other98.4%
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

Sai  - PeerSpot reviewer
Ai/Data Analyst at CSD
Automation has streamlined complex data workflows and now saves time on recurring reporting
To improve ActiveBatch by Redwood, the UI could be more modern and intuitive, and another thing that comes to mind is that it can feel overwhelming when workflows become large and complex. Troubleshooting can take extra time when there are multiple dependencies, jobs, and integrations running together. Better visualization of workflow relationships and easier debugging would really help. I would also appreciate seeing more simplified onboarding and documentation for newer users, as there is a learning curve at the beginning. Another improvement area could be smarter analytics or AI-driven recommendations, such as proactively identifying workflow bottlenecks, failed job patterns, or optimization suggestions instead of relying mostly on manual monitoring. From an operational perspective, faster configuration for integrations and cloud-based workflows would make implementation smoother, especially in environments working heavily with APIs and data pipelines. I have covered the main points regarding needed improvements. Overall, the platform is very capable and reliable for automation and workflow scheduling, especially in data-heavy environments. Most of the improvements I want are around making it easier for day-to-day use, such as a more intuitive UI, simpler troubleshooting for complex workflows, better onboarding for newer users, and more intelligent monitoring or optimization insights. The core functionality is strong, and the biggest opportunity is improving the overall user experience and simplifying operational management.
Andre Soares - PeerSpot reviewer
Sre at Atlas Technologies
Workflow automation has improved cross‑team collaboration and centralizes operational requests
Overall, I had a positive experience with Pipefy, but I think there are still some areas that could be improved. One area would be advanced workflow management and scalability for more complex enterprise environments. As workflows grow larger and involve many teams, pipelines and automations can become difficult to maintain and organize over time. I also think reports and analytics could be more flexible and customizable for operational and management level insights. More advanced dashboard capabilities would be helpful for larger organizations. Another improvement could be deeper native integrations with technical and DevOps-oriented tools, especially for infrastructure and engineering workflows. In some cases, more advanced automation logic or conditional workflows require additional configurations or effort. Simplifying this experience could improve usability. Finally, while the platform is very useful and user-friendly for non-technical users, governance and permission management in larger environments could become easier to structure and manage at scale.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The software offers real-time monitoring and reporting features that let IT teams keep tabs on the progress of their batch operations and workflows."
"ActiveBatch by Redwood has positively impacted our organization because we are able to process files very effectively."
"It has helped with scheduling complex jobs with simple scripts."
"The most valuable feature is its stability. We've only had very minor issues and generally they have happened because someone has applied a patch on a Windows operating system and it has caused some grief. We've actually been able to resolve those issues quite quickly with ActiveBatch. In all the time that I've had use of ActiveBatch, it hasn't failed completely once. Uptime is almost 100 percent."
"ActiveBatch provides summary reports and logs for further analysis and improvements in monitoring servers, which is very handy."
"For developers, it is easy to orchestrate the workflows and the integration has been very easy."
"The product offers a centralized platform for managing activities across many environments, applications, etc."
"The user interface is really incredible."
"Pipefy has impacted my organization positively as we have not reduced our headcount, but we could if we wanted to because the number of people managing those processes before Pipefy was a lot."
"In terms of money and time saved, Pipefy is a great time saver overall, reflecting in analysts handling additional projects beyond ticket management."
"Overall, Pipefy helped create more predictable, organized, and scalable operational processes."
"Pipefy has had a positive impact on my organization by helping the collections team convert invoices that were overdue into paid invoices and, consequently, cash for the company."
 

Cons

"Whenever there is an overload, we are seeing crashes happening."
"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."
"A cloud option is not provided as a free feature, making it a costly solution for smaller organizations."
"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 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."
"It does have a little bit of a learning curve because it is fairly complex. You have to learn how it does things. I don't know if it's any worse than any other tool would be, just because of the nature of what it does... the learning curve is the hardest part."
"The help center and documentation are not that helpful."
"What is lacking is direct support, since I am required to go through a third-party outsourcing company to connect with Pipefy."
"I believe Pipefy can be improved by clarifying the API calls and making packages for API calls more accessible, because in my organization we have a lot of automation, but we have few API calls, precisely because we have a fixed plan and the organization, in fact, does not need that."
"Pipefy can be improved with processes not only following Kanban styles but other kinds of processes that have more paths, not just a single, direct path, but they have bifurcations."
"Overall, I had a positive experience with Pipefy, but I think there are still some areas that could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price was fairly in line with other automation tools. I don't think it's exorbitantly expensive, relatively speaking."
"If you compare ActiveBatch licensing to Control-M, you're looking at $50,000 as opposed to millions."
"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."
"Currently, we are paying approximately $7,000 yearly, which includes support."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It allows for lower operational overhead."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
899,324 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Performing Arts
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise49
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ActiveBatch Workload Automation?
I was not directly involved in the pricing, setup cost, and licensing decisions for ActiveBatch by Redwood, so my experience is from the user and workflow side rather than procurement. However, bas...
What needs improvement with ActiveBatch Workload Automation?
One way ActiveBatch by Redwood can be improved is through a more intuitive user interface for new users. I rate ActiveBatch by Redwood an eight out of ten because it is powerful, but a perfect scor...
What is your primary use case for ActiveBatch Workload Automation?
My main use case for ActiveBatch by Redwood is automating complex job scheduling and workflow orchestration across multiple systems. I also automate end-to-end IT maintenance tasks such as system h...
What needs improvement with Pipefy?
Pipefy can be improved with processes not only following Kanban styles but other kinds of processes that have more paths, not just a single, direct path, but they have bifurcations. Pipefy can also...
What is your primary use case for Pipefy?
My main use case for Pipefy is to manage processes and to follow processes with Kanban style management and for some automations such as when an activity is completed then someone gets an email ask...
What advice do you have for others considering Pipefy?
My advice for others looking into using Pipefy is to first describe the process and the improvements in the process before developing the system and the Kanban style. Before you develop Pipefy, I s...
 

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
1. Accenture 2. Coca-Cola 3. Santander 4. IBM 5. Unilever 6. Siemens 7. Johnson & Johnson 8. Deloitte 9. PwC 10. Nestle 11. General Electric 12. Microsoft 13. Oracle 14. Amazon 15. Facebook 16. Google 17. Apple 18. Uber 19. Airbnb 20. Netflix 21. Adobe 22. Salesforce 23. Cisco 24. Intel 25. HP 26. Samsung 27. Sony 28. Toyota 29. Volkswagen 30. BMW 31. Mercedes-Benz 32. Audi
Find out what your peers are saying about ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Pipefy and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
899,324 professionals have used our research since 2012.