We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch Workload Automation and Tidal Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly praised for its versatility and ease of use. Users appreciate the prebuilt jobs and real-time monitoring capabilities, as well as the automatic scheduling feature. Tidal Automation is known for its excellent job scheduling and single pane of glass interface, which allows for convenient management. Users also value the flexibility in running jobs and the data security features offered by Tidal Automation.
ActiveBatch could improve licensing, user interface, trigger reliability, documentation, support services, and integration capabilities. Tidal Automation could benefit from enhancements in its user interface, pricing model, integration options, and customization features.
Service and Support: Users have provided positive feedback for the customer service of ActiveBatch Workload Automation, appreciating the helpfulness, reliability, and responsiveness of the support team. However, there are concerns regarding the service model and availability of the hotline. Tidal Automation has highly praised customer service that is responsive, knowledgeable, and willing to assist. The experienced support team promptly addresses problems, although there are occasional mentions of lower-priority items being overlooked.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation was smooth and straightforward, without any significant challenges. However, there was a minor requirement for additional documentation during the file import. The setup for Tidal Automation was described as easy to handle and uncomplicated, with useful documentation available. Some users expressed a desire for more training to tackle complex tasks.
Pricing: Users find the setup cost for ActiveBatch Workload Automation to be quick and straightforward. The pricing is seen as reasonable and competitive. Tidal Automation's pricing is also fair and predictable, with a transparent licensing model. However, some users mention the complexity of licensing when additional adapters are required.
ROI: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly regarded for its ability to enhance net revenue, offering a valuable solution. Tidal Automation streamlines operations, mitigates risks, and consolidates tasks, providing substantial benefits in terms of reducing manual efforts and improving overall job management.
Comparison Results: Tidal Automation is the favored choice over ActiveBatch Workload Automation. Users commend Tidal Automation's job scheduler, streamlined interface, and ability to run jobs on various servers. The user-friendly interface and seamless integration with other systems are also highly regarded.
"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."
"Approximately ~20 hours of manual effort have been reduced to ~5 hours with the help of ActiveBatch."
"As far as centralization goes it's nice because we can see all these processes that are tied to this larger process. The commissions, FTP processing, the reporting, the file moves to the business users — all that is right there. It's very easy to read. It's easy to tie it together, visually, and see where each of these steps fits into the bigger picture."
"There are hundreds of pre-built steps."
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"ActiveBatch has reduced work by providing automated workflows across several different applications."
"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 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 thing that I like the most is the reliability of the engine. The actual scheduling part of the product is pretty much flawless, but the stability of the product is what I find to be reassuring."
"With the varied features in the varied adapters provided, we use Tidal Enterprise Scheduler because we want everything to be scheduled in one place. Tidal provides that for us with its tools and varying platforms in our organization. Tidal provides all the connectors to the platforms. This is very useful because we don't want to look for another scheduler for scheduling certain jobs. We don't want to look at those schedules manually between platforms."
"Tidal Automation software provides real-time monitoring and alerts, allowing users to track job progress and identify potential issues before they cause delays or errors."
"It's the most efficient tool in doing repetitive tasks and saves a lot of time with minimum possibility of error."
"It's easy to use and easy to administer, and it's very flexible."
"We use the solution for cross-platform, cross-application workloads. That's the biggest use for us and that's the biggest advantage."
"The first, big thing that we got out of using Tidal Workload Automation was having a centralized view of the status of all of our batch processes across all these systems... We can look into the schedule at any given time and see if things are running on track or if they are falling behind. We can also see if something failed."
"The data management on offer was valuable."
"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."
"There is this back and forth, where ActiveBatch says, "Your Oracle people should be dealing with this," and Oracle people say, "No, we don't know anything about ActiveBatch." Then, it all falls back on me as to what happens. Nobody is taking responsibility. This is the biggest failing for ActiveBatch."
"One thing I've noticed is that navigation can be difficult unless you are familiar with the structure that we have in place. If someone else had to look at our ActiveBatch console and find a job, they might not know where to find it."
"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."
"ActiveBatch UI could use a little more help, and video tutorials would be greatly appreciated for user guides."
"The help center and documentation are not that helpful."
"It could be easier to provide dashboards on how many jobs are running at the same time; more monitoring."
"Providing some detailed training materials could be very helpful for new users who have very limited technical information about the tool."
"One of the weaknesses of the product is, when something happens, it's difficult to find out the root cause. There are a lot of logs you can take a look at in Tidal. Sometimes, they are useful, but other times, they're not. That is mostly relegated to the administrative team. Users for the most part don't see that and don't know anything about that. They just know they have a problem, then it's up to the administrative team to see what happened and figure out the problem."
"The job failure alerts can be updated with more details for better troubleshooting."
"We've had some quirky stuff happen on an occasional basis where a job does not take off. For example, a job we expected to be finished by 3:00 a.m. is sitting there and not executing when we come in in the morning. We have to go all the way back to the dependencies and then we can see that one of the dependencies has become unscheduled, for some reason. No changes were made to the schedule but this prerequisite job has, all of a sudden, become unscheduled. I have brought this up with Tidal's support but they have never had an answer for it."
"I would like more involvement with the cloud."
"When we patch to the next version, there is often a little thing that breaks. It has rarely been a big deal, but I always seem to have to follow up on one tiny issue. It would help if they had some better QA testing of their patches."
"For the most part, the drill-down and the logging are really good. But if we take an Informatica job, for example: We have the ability, and the operators have the ability, to actually drill down and see, at a session level, where the failure is. There is, unfortunately, no way to extract that into an actual output email or failure email. It's not that that information is not available, but extracting it into an email would be a nice-to-have."
"I know they are working on it, but there needs to be better reporting. Currently, there are only three or four reports that we can get off of the system. That needs to be improved. They already have a solution to this in the new version. I.e., a schedule of all the jobs running for one day, specifically calling out what dependencies that job relies on. It would be like a flow chart of how the day's jobs would run."
"The product’s UI is outdated. They should work on this particular area."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while Tidal by Redwood is ranked 2nd in Workload Automation with 37 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while Tidal by Redwood is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tidal by Redwood writes "Great visibility with a single pane of glass and a low learning curve". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, VisualCron, IBM Workload Automation and Redwood RunMyJobs, whereas Tidal by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs and Rocket Zeke. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Tidal by Redwood report.
See our list of best Workload Automation vendors.
We monitor all Workload Automation 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.