We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch by Redwood and AWS Transfer for SFTP [EOL] 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)."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."
"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."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the versatility of the prebuilt jobs."
"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 REST API adapters and native integrations for integrating and orchestrating the software stack are very flexible."
"ActiveBatch has reduced work by providing automated workflows across several different applications."
"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."
"The user interface is really incredible."
"Being able to have the S3 files as storage is most valuable. We can use S3 as storage instead of an SFTP server or a machine."
"The solution offers good data recovery."
"The solution has helped with collaboration in our organization."
"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."
"A nice thing to have would be the ability to comfortably pass variables from one job to another. That was one of the things that I found difficult."
"Whenever there is an overload, we are seeing crashes happening."
"Setting up the software was hard."
"They have some crucial design flaws within the console that still need to be worked out because it is not working exactly how we hoped to see it, e.g., just some minor things where when you hit the save button, then all of a sudden all your job's library items collapse. Then, in order to continue on with your testing, you have to open those back up. I have taken that to them, and they are like, "Yep. We know about it. We know we have some enhancements that need to be taken care of. We have more developers now." They are working towards taking the minor things that annoy us, resolving them, and getting them fixed."
"Providing some detailed training materials could be very helpful for new users who have very limited technical information about the tool."
"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."
"They could provide an easier installation guide or technical support to the organizations during the installation process."
"Its cost needs improvement. In addition, there could be a universal client that works on all desktops."
"Could be more automated, particularly for file transfers."
"The tool's UI should be pretty easy and straightforward. I would also like to see a simple audit report of the SFTP guest account that shows the amount of data transfers and security kind enabled."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 5th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 35 reviews while AWS Transfer for SFTP [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 3 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while AWS Transfer for SFTP [EOL] is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of AWS Transfer for SFTP [EOL] writes "Always works, handles all types of load, and allows us to have S3 files as storage". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, VisualCron and IBM Workload Automation, whereas AWS Transfer for SFTP [EOL] is most compared with IBM Sterling File Gateway, MOVEit, Kiteworks, CA XCOM Data Transport and Aspera Managed File Transfer.
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.
