Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

ActiveBatch by Redwood vs Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

ActiveBatch by Redwood
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
14th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (17th), Workload Automation (13th)
Axway AMPLIFY Managed File ...
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
9th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2025, in the Managed File Transfer (MFT) category, the mindshare of ActiveBatch by Redwood is 2.4%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer is 3.8%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Managed File Transfer (MFT) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer3.8%
ActiveBatch by Redwood2.4%
Other93.8%
Managed File Transfer (MFT)
 

Featured Reviews

Shubham Bharti - PeerSpot reviewer
Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation
Occasionally, I find myself contemplating if there is room for improvement in the user interface (UI), and envisioning that with certain enhancements. The UI could potentially offer a more refined and user-friendly experience, fostering smoother interactions and facilitating easier navigation for users engaging with the application. New users might encounter a minor setback due to the absence of readily accessible training videos, which could have otherwise proven to be an invaluable resource in aiding their initial familiarization with the platform, potentially hindering their seamless onboarding process and delaying their ability to harness the software's full range of capabilities to its utmost potential.
Sayantan Sarkar - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly and doesn't take much space when getting installed
When it comes to the tool's scalability, I cannot say that everything can be done in the best version. There is always a scope for improvement. The tool can try to make it a little bit more flexible so that we can easily invoke the APIs, and in such a way, it can be made a little bit better. In general, everything is fine with respect to the tool's scalability. My company has encountered some challenges. The tool does not allow the explicit port for some of the protocols, like FTP. We are still selling the tool to some of our clients. I feel they should allow us to do some testing for the SMB-related protocols or Windows path-related protocols, which we are not allowing, making it difficult for us to identify the issue with respect to those SMB protocols as well as Amazon S3's protocols. I believe it is an area that needs to be fixed so that it will help the end customer do those types of tests without the help of another external tool. As of now, I can remember only these two scenarios where improvements are needed.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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."
"I found ActiveBatch Workload Automation to be a very good scheduling tool. What I like best about it is that it has very less downtime when managing many complex scheduling workflows, so I'm very impressed with ActiveBatch Workload Automation."
"The software offers real-time monitoring and reporting features that let IT teams keep tabs on the progress of their batch operations and workflows."
"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."
"Error Handling is one of the best standout features of ActiveBatch."
"ActiveBatch provides summary reports and logs for further analysis and improvements in monitoring servers, which is very handy."
"We are able to integrate it into multiple third-party tools like email, backup, tracking systems, SharePoint, Slack alerts, etc."
"Managing the workload and monitoring the tasks were very difficult with manual interventions. Now, by using ActiveBatch, the process is automated and it runs tasks on a scheduled basis."
"It provides a good amount of storage capacity for a reasonable price and has a good range of connectors."
"It’s very flexible."
"Axway consolidated all of our communications into one platform, simplifying network and port management. Now, all we have to do is open one port to this application, and we can remove all the firewall rules on that port. It's much more straightforward to manage from a security perspective. We used to rely on an archaic FTP solution, but Axway features SFTP, so it was an improvement security-wise."
"The product is simple for encrypting data transfer of all the assets in our system."
"It is an easy-to-use and stable product."
"It makes a logical link between the inbound/outbound transfer, and makes it clearly visible. This is a very important feature for managing transfer with different environments, and it's very helpful in case of troubleshooting."
"The product's initial setup phase is pretty straightforward."
"AMPLIFY has all the essential features for managing file transfer."
 

Cons

"ActiveBatch is a little complex."
"As more organizations are moving towards a cloud-based infrastructure, ActiveBatch could incorporate more capabilities that support popular cloud platforms, such as AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud."
"The user interface can be improved so that it is more appealing and accessible to new users."
"It could be easier to provide dashboards on how many jobs are running at the same time; more monitoring."
"I have faced struggles to understand, set up the tool, and implement it in my early days as a new user."
"A cloud option is not provided as a free feature, making it a costly solution for smaller organizations."
"We currently face issues with the web console of ActiveBatch by Redwood. When users operate through an RDP session, every user has their own ActiveBatch by Redwood application. However, on the web console, users encounter daily activity issues where the job instances do not appear or update correctly, and they cannot view the latest logs."
"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."
"Sometimes, the application's embedded databases couldn't perform well for a higher volume of data."
"One area of improvement is troubleshooting. When a transfer fails, they provide little information about the login, which makes troubleshooting difficult. Also, file transfer scheduling is primitive. By that, I mean you can't define a complex schedule, like scheduling a job to run at particular hours multiple times in a day."
"Improvement in Data Encoding would be very appreciated (I'm thinking of ASCII-EBCDIC, ASCII-ASCII, etc.)."
"The areas in need of improvement are the monitoring and the cut-off management, when needed. Today you have at least two solutions: Buy the other Axway suite, Sentinel, or integrate it into your monitoring system."
"The initial setup was quite complex."
"We only hope that they continue to keep updating the solution and improving the offering. They could always do more updates and releases."
"Their monitoring is not up to the mark and needs improvement."
"It is complicated to manage multi-operations, particularly in handling file name changes within file transcripts."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I don't think we've ever had a problem with the pricing or licensing. Even the maintenance fees are very much in line. They are not excessive. I think for the support that you get, you get a good value for your money. It's the best value on the market."
"The pricing was fair. There are additional costs for the plugins. We have the standard licensing fees for different pieces, then we have the plugins which were add-ons. However, we expected that."
"It allows for lower operational overhead."
"The price was fairly in line with other automation tools. I don't think it's exorbitantly expensive, relatively speaking."
"If you compare ActiveBatch licensing to Control-M, you're looking at $50,000 as opposed to millions."
"ActiveBatch is currently redesigning themselves. In the past, they were a low cost solution for automation. They had a nice tool that was very inexpensive. With their five-year plan, they will be more enhancement-driven, so they're trying to improve their software, customer service, and the way that their customers get information from them. In doing that, they're raising the price of their base system. They changed from one pricing model to another, which has caused some friction between ActiveBatch and us. We're working through that right now with them. That's one of the reasons why we're why we were evaluating other software packages."
"Currently, we are paying approximately $7,000 yearly, which includes support."
"I like ActiveBatch Workload Automation's licensing model because they're not holding you down on an agentless model or agent model, where every server needs to have an agent. That's the main selling point of the solution and I hope they stay that way."
"The platform's price aligns with the market."
"AMPLIFY's license is a one-time investment."
"Pricing and licensing is related to the protocols you choose to support."
"It is quite expensive, and because of that, we get good service from them in return for the price paid."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions are best for your needs.
873,003 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Insurance Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
7%
Financial Services Firm
24%
Healthcare Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise47
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise7
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer?
The product is simple for encrypting data transfer of all the assets in our system.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer?
There's infinite pricing available on their portal, however, it's typically accompanied by a discount. However, detailed pricing information is confidential and was not shared in this call.
What needs improvement with Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer?
Their monitoring is not up to the mark and needs improvement. They should have enhanced auto-reconnection capabilities for interrupted file transfers and implement features allowing chunk movement ...
 

Also Known As

ActiveBatch
SecureTransport, Axway SecureTransport, AMPLIFY MFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Informatica, D&H, ACES, PrimeSource, Sub-Zero Group, SThree, Lamar Advertising, Subway, Xcel Energy, Ignite Technologies, Whataburger, Jyske Bank, Omaha Children's Hospital
BNP Paribas Securities Services, Bollor_, E.ON AG Group, BMW Group, IdenTrust, Gassco, International Post Corporation, SNCF, DB Schenker Logistics, Logius, CSCA, La Poste
Find out what your peers are saying about ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
873,003 professionals have used our research since 2012.