We performed a comparison between AppWorx Workload Automation and Rocket Zena based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AppWorx Workload Automation is highly regarded for its intuitive and easy-to-navigate interface, consistent and reliable performance, and its capacity to efficiently handle a large number of nightly tasks. Rocket Zena receives acclaim for its user-friendly design, intuitive interface, diagram functionality, Linux compatibility, ability to schedule jobs across different platforms, web-based client, and the capability to transfer files through FTP.
AppWorx Workload Automation can be improved by enhancing API integration, integrating with other tools more effectively, and enhancing scalability. Rocket Zena needs improvement in areas such as providing visibility into connections between applications, monitoring agents, reducing UI loading time, and offering comprehensive documentation.
Service and Support: Customers appreciate the technical support provided by both companies, describing it as highly rated, knowledgeable, and responsive.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for AppWorx Workload Automation is generally seen as uncomplicated and clear, although it may seem intricate to those unfamiliar with the system. It necessitates administrator access and collaboration in implementing the system with databases. Rocket Zena's setup experience differed among users, with some finding it more comprehensible as a novice. The integration with SAP posed difficulties and needed troubleshooting.
Pricing: AppWorx Workload Automation has a high setup cost, which is based on the number of systems used. Rocket Zena is affordable and cost-effective, making it suitable for small businesses.
ROI: AppWorx Workload Automation lacks sufficient user feedback or case studies to determine its ROI. Rocket Zena has demonstrated notable time savings and enhanced accuracy, leading to a clear return on investment for the company.
Comparison Results: Rocket Zena is the preferred choice over AppWorx Workload Automation. Users find Rocket Zena to be easy to use with an intuitive interface. They appreciate its valuable features like the diagram feature, cross-platform job scheduling, and FTP file transfer. Users also find the pricing and licensing to be cost-effective. Rocket Zena is highly regarded as a user-friendly and efficient tool for managing complex operational workflows.
"It is really a robust product."
"The automated solution is the most valuable piece. Otherwise, we would have to be doing everything manually on every server."
"We have a lot of nightly jobs that need to be run. Therefore, we perform a lot of calculations and processes during nighttime hours."
"The interface is good."
"It has improved my organization through automation of back office and infrastructure procedures, and by integrating and orchestrating key business applications spanning multiple technology stacks."
"The most valuable features of AppWorx Workload Automation are simplicity and reliability. Additionally, they recently transformed the UI which is better."
"Scheduling is a good feature."
"The solution is very user friendly so anyone can use it."
"In the latest upgrade, Zena added a web-based client. The more I use it, the more I like it. It's an excellent interface. They do a good job of steadily improving the solution to make it more useful."
"We haven't had any problems since we installed it. It runs as expected, we haven't had any critical problems. It helps keeps the business running 24/7."
"The most valuable feature is the FTP file transfer."
"You can click Ctrl-G and bring a diagram view. You're able to view in a diagram format. The view that it provides is easy, and you can move to the left, up, or down. You can double-click on a certain process. It'll drill into that process and all of its underlying components. You can double-click on an arrow or a component, and it'll bring up a screen that'll have all the variables that are assigned to that particular piece, as well as the values at run time. So, the diagram feature of it, at least for me, is pretty valuable."
"I like the whole product, but specifically, I like the license part. It's very easy to acquire a license for this product."
"Its FTP feature is very good, as is scheduling any process or task with the Zena client. I have found it to be very helpful. If a task fails, it gives you a prompt."
"From a Linux configuration point of view, Rocket Zena is straightforward. It's fairly easy to set up the server and agents once you know how to do it."
"I have used other tools with similar capabilities; it's the ease of use."
"We are looking for additional features that would allow us to call APIs and integrate the product with other tools more effectively."
"Reporting, forecasting and intelligence could be improved."
"It has been a deprecated product, because it is so old. There has been a couple of new solutions that are a little more advanced."
"The compliance features are limited to the server and not the entire infrastructure."
"It is difficult to integrate with the Active Directory (AD)."
"As a general process automation and integration tool, it has been superseded by other offerings, notably the Workload Automation suite."
"The scalability could improve."
"The internal security model can be complex when configuring multiple user groups."
"Rocket Zena is a mainframe-based job scheduler. I would like it to be more open so that we can use it on a distributed platform."
"In the next release, I would like the user experience to be improved. The user interface should be more appealing to gen-z."
"In the next release, I would like to have an alert feature to indicate when an agent is down. Rocket Zena is not capable of sending alerts that the agent is down. As of now, you have manually monitor to see when the agent is down."
"In the web interface, it stacks the tasks across the top, and they accumulate until you close or clean those out. That seems a little cumbersome. You must right-click and close all tabs constantly to keep the console clean and manage your views."
"Another one that is probably a little bit bigger for me is that when there is an issue or there's an error, it writes on a different screen. I have to find the actual process name and go to a different screen to view the alert that got generated. On that screen, everyone's processes, not just the processes of the folks in my department, are thrown. It takes me a while to find the actual error so that I could go in there and look at the alert. It could be because of the way it was set up, but at least for me, it isn't too intuitive."
"The scheduling mapping is a little disjointed. There is no wizard-type approach. There are a lot of different things that you have to do in completely different areas. They could probably add the functionality for creating all components of a mapping or an OPA schedule. The component creation could be done collectively rather than through individual components."
"The documentation has room for improvement."
"The UI is not intuitive, and it would be nice if there was a web interface."
AppWorx Workload Automation is ranked 17th in Workload Automation with 7 reviews while Rocket Zena is ranked 12th in Workload Automation with 9 reviews. AppWorx Workload Automation is rated 8.0, while Rocket Zena is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of AppWorx Workload Automation writes "The scheduling tool and finance module are valuable features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rocket Zena writes "A continuously evolving, stable solution, with responsive support". AppWorx Workload Automation is most compared with Automic Workload Automation, Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Automic Automation Intelligence and Stonebranch, whereas Rocket Zena is most compared with Control-M, Rocket Zeke, IBM Workload Automation, AutoSys Workload Automation and ActiveBatch by Redwood. See our AppWorx Workload Automation vs. Rocket Zena 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.