We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch by Redwood and SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server 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)."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."
"We are able to integrate it into multiple third-party tools like email, backup, tracking systems, SharePoint, Slack alerts, etc."
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"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."
"The user interface is really incredible."
"ActiveBatch provides summary reports and logs for further analysis and improvements in monitoring servers, which is very handy."
"ActiveBatch has reduced work by providing automated workflows across several different applications."
"It can connect to a number of third-party/legacy systems."
"We use SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server for internal file transfer."
"I have faced struggles to understand, set up the tool, and implement it in my early days as a new user."
"ActiveBatch UI could use a little more help, and video tutorials would be greatly appreciated for user guides."
"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."
"Some improvements can be made to the user interface."
"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."
"Setting up the software was hard."
"They could provide an easier installation guide or technical support to the organizations during the installation process."
"The product should be improved by providing a customization option."
"The solution’s technical support should be improved."
More SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 5th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 35 reviews while SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server is ranked 20th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 1 review. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server writes "The solution can be used for internal file transfer, but its technical support and third-party integrations should be improved". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs and VisualCron, whereas SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server is most compared with MOVEit, WS_FTP Server 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.
