We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch Workload Automation and AutoSys 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 known for its versatility and ease of use, as well as its prebuilt jobs and real-time monitoring. It also has a strong alerting mechanism and excels in workload distribution and integration capabilities.AutoSys Workload Automation is highly acclaimed for its scalability and ease of use, as well as its speed and availability. It is particularly valued for job scheduling and orchestrating tasks.
ActiveBatch users would like to see enhancements in licensing, user interface, trigger reliability, monitoring dashboard, documentation, support services, cloud capabilities, and pricing. AutoSys users desire integration with cloud services, better reporting and monitoring capabilities, improved workflow management, and enhanced workload window management.
Service and Support: Users have praised ActiveBatch for its helpful and reliable technical support, which includes workarounds, a clear knowledge base, and APIs. AutoSys receives high praise for its very good, helpful, and responsive support. Users see the support team for both products as sufficient and capable, with a standardized approach and a mature product.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is uncomplicated, although there could be improved documentation for file importing. However, configuring it on varied environments like Windows and Linux can be challenging. AutoSys Workload Automation setup is described as effortless, direct, and fairly rapid, taking around 10 minutes or less with minimal clicks. For more intricate setups, a complete implementation may require a month or two.
Pricing: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has an uncomplicated and quick setup process, with users finding the pricing fair and competitive. AutoSys Workload Automation offers different pricing and licensing choices, with some users perceiving it as costly.
ROI: Users have praised ActiveBatch Workload Automation for its positive financial impact, such as a notable rise in net revenue. AutoSys Workload Automation provides various advantages like heightened productivity, enhanced efficiency, cost savings, improved visibility and control, and decreased downtime.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is the preferred choice when compared to AutoSys Workload Automation. Users appreciate ActiveBatch's simplicity in setup and implementation, its versatility, ease of use, and extensive library of prebuilt job steps. They also value its real-time monitoring and scalability.
"Error Handling is one of the best standout features of ActiveBatch."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to trigger workflows, one after another, based on success, without having to worry about overlapping workflows. The ability to integrate our BI, analytics, and our data quality jobs is also valuable"
"Using this tool, if there are any huge failures, we immediately get an email notification, and the proper team will be informed, at which time they can act accordingly."
"We leverage the solution's native integrations regularly. We have to get files from a remote server outside the organization, and even send things outside the organization. We use a lot of its file manipulation and SFTP functionality for contacting remote servers."
"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."
"ActiveBatch provides summary reports and logs for further analysis and improvements in monitoring servers, which is very handy."
"We use the main job-scheduling feature. It's the only thing we use in the tool. That's the reason we are using the tool: to reduce costs by replacing manual tasks with automated tasks and to perform regular, repetitive tasks in a more reliable way."
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"The most valuable aspects of AutoSys Workload Automation are its performance, scalability, and ease of getting started for new users."
"The aggregator reporting utility which tells us our throughput in lag and latency."
"Automation of patch process."
"The flexibility in solving job scheduling challenges allows us to successfully integrate an acquired business’ fiscal close with our own, even though there is a lot of variance as to when they run in the calendar month."
"The most valuable feature of AutoSys Workload Automation is batch processing."
"It gives a real-time view of all the batch processing that we have. Monitoring-wise, it is really good."
"Integration with multiple services and applications across the enterprise."
"The initial setup is easy."
"There are very few documents that provide us with detailed information on the troubleshooting of errors that occur during integration with the existing environment."
"Except for the GUI, everything looks good."
"Setting up the software was hard."
"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."
"A cloud option is not provided as a free feature, making it a costly solution for smaller organizations."
"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 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."
"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."
"SQL server clustering is not supported."
"Ease of implementation for upgrades."
"There is a difference between a web interface and the thick client interface. We particularly like a thick client interface, and it has gone away."
"In terms of what should be in the next release, I want integration and AI and so on. I'd like easy reporting where you can compare information, for example, "that job normally takes three minutes and last time it took six minutes or 10 minutes." Then you can get the information to the engineer of which job is taking more time than normal - understanding strange behavior compared to the baseline."
"Needs better documentation with fully explained examples for some of the job types."
"The GUI/Workstation is weak and needs to be improved. CA is working on this right now."
"I would like to see two-factor authentication, since you see a lot of companies in the news for security breaches. That is a really big thing for us."
"It lacks support and integration with cloud computing platforms."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, Tidal by Redwood, IBM Workload Automation, VisualCron and Redwood RunMyJobs, whereas AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Stonebranch and Dollar Universe Workload Automation. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. AutoSys 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.