We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch Workload Automation and Automic Workload 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 regarded for its flexibility, simplicity, and ready-made tasks. It provides live monitoring, automatic scheduling, and effective resource management. Automic Workload Automation receives acclaim for its strength, scalability, and straightforward integration. It enables control over various operating systems and products, offering a wide array of features and a user-friendly interface.
ActiveBatch Workload Automation can be enhanced in areas such as managed file transfer, licensing, cloud aspect, user interface, reliability of triggers, monitoring dashboard, price, documentation, support, and integration capabilities. Automic Workload Automation requires improvement in automation sets, language support, functionality, interface, web-based edition, file transfer, pricing, and support.
Service and Support: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has been praised for its customer service, specifically its helpful and responsive technical support. However, there are concerns about the service model and availability of the hotline. Automic Workload Automation has received mixed reviews, with some customers appreciating quick response times and helpful knowledge articles. However, others have faced challenges in reaching support and experienced delays in issue resolution.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is straightforward and uncomplicated, although it can be slightly challenging when implementing it on various operating systems. The initial setup for Automic Workload Automation can be time-consuming and intricate, taking anywhere from one to five days.
Pricing: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly regarded for its flexible and reasonably priced setup cost. Users find it to be competitive when compared to other tools. Automic Workload Automation has experienced pricing changes. While some users view it as expensive, they still consider it affordable in comparison to similar solutions.
ROI: Active Workload Automation has been highly regarded for its ability to generate positive financial outcomes, resulting in a notable increase in net revenue ranging from 20% to 30%. Automic Workload Automation did not provide much ROI for users and was perceived as an added expenditure.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is the preferred choice when compared to Automic Workload Automation. Users appreciate ActiveBatch for its straightforward setup process and intuitive interface, while Automic is acknowledged to have different degrees of complexity. ActiveBatch is also praised for its versatility, offering prebuilt jobs and a user-friendly configuration.
"The software offers real-time monitoring and reporting features that let IT teams keep tabs on the progress of their batch operations and workflows."
"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."
"The nice thing about ActiveBatch is once we have created a specific job that can be easily be replicated to another job, then minimal changes will have to be made. This makes things nice. Reduction of coding is substantial in a lot of cases. The replication of one job to another is just doing a few minor tweaks and rolling it into production. This decreases our development costs substantially."
"It can connect to a number of third-party/legacy systems."
"From a scheduling point of view, it is pretty good."
"The automation feature is a very valuable feature as the associates do not have to worry about performing repetitive tasks (i.e. endpoint security scans on a daily basis) that would take several hours to complete on a daily basis."
"It has helped with scheduling complex jobs with simple scripts."
"Error Handling is one of the best standout features of ActiveBatch."
"We automate very manual, robust tasks, which are very time consuming and not error-free."
"We use it in every aspect of our IT operations, and the scalability is very good."
"Automic is 99 percent stable. We've never had a problem with stability."
"It enables us to build automation which is flexible in a controlled environment."
"Both the stability and the scalability of Automic Workload Automation are great."
"I like the script engine of CA, where you can build everything you want."
"They just talked about adding support for hundreds of thousands of agents, and I know it goes up to about a thousand clients per engine, so you can do a lot with that. It's a very scalable solution."
"I use this automation solution, because it is very flexible. This automation solution supports a lot of computer platforms. Also, a lot of operating systems are supported other than automation solutions."
"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."
"Setting up the software was hard."
"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 could be easier to provide dashboards on how many jobs are running at the same time; more monitoring."
"We have faced a couple of issues where we were supposed to log a defect with ActiveBatch. That said, the Active batch Vendor Support is very responsive and reliable."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing has the potential to be high."
"We would like to have token-based authentication. Where we do not have to use a password, and can use tokens for authentication in other systems."
"There is one missing part in the product concerning recurring tasks. You can schedule a recurring task by a context action, and run it as recurrent, but it creates a time container which can be quit and disappears."
"With every new version, things that would previously work, Automic breaks them. So, we have to report the new bugs. Therefore, every time when we patch the system, there is usually a new bug or a feature that was working, then it stops working."
"Choosing Automic Workload Automation essentially locks us into their ecosystem, making it nearly impossible to switch to a different product."
"The new user interface needs improvement. The previous version was good and stable. Now, we have to check the new one before using a web browser. It is not stable."
"For the user interface of version 12.1, I cannot find a lot of utilities and objects from previous versions, making me change my habits. This is not good."
"In talking with other customers as well, they would like to see a few enhancements done where you can pull in outside data sources to get a cumulative view from one centralized place."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Automic Workload Automation writes "A tool requiring an easy setup phase that provides its users with flexibility and flow chart visibility ". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, VisualCron and Rocket Zena, whereas Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Dollar Universe Workload Automation. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Automic Workload Automation 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.
