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

AppWorx Workload Automation vs Stonebranch comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 27, 2025

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

AppWorx Workload Automation
Ranking in Workload Automation
14th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Stonebranch
Ranking in Workload Automation
11th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Workload Automation category, the mindshare of AppWorx Workload Automation is 1.5%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Stonebranch is 4.5%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Workload Automation Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Stonebranch4.5%
AppWorx Workload Automation1.5%
Other94.0%
Workload Automation
 

Featured Reviews

Srikanth Gubba - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation boosts efficiency with a user-friendly interface
Currently, I have switched to negotiating through third-party vendors for licensing, which has made it more expensive. Broadcom should address this by dealing directly with customers again. Licensing fees have increased as they charge based on executions rather than user agents, causing higher costs. Technical support also involves third-party interactions, complicating direct assistance from Broadcom.
Siddharth Matalia - PeerSpot reviewer
Good GUI and has helpful support but needs a mobile app
This was a migration project where we provided our database, the previous one, and there was a tool that automatically converted the awarded job into Stonebranch. All the conversion was done from the Stonebranch side, and we got a person as well from Stonebranch during migration. There was a person who worked with us a decade back for the AutoSys install as well. He was well aware of our environment, so he helped us a lot. It was easy. It was not that complex. It is much more GUI. That said, we are looking for how the various automation can be done since, through command lines, you can create a number of jobs. While you are creating a single job, it takes 15 minutes with the GUI, however, if you go for the command line, within two or three minutes, your job gets completed. We have built our own solution for automation using some REST API and all those various integrations. It is working for our organization right now. However, we are requesting some kind of solution from Stonebranch. They should have been providing that to us already. For deployment, three or four people were engaged with the setup on their side. To manage everything, they provided us with a person who required help to manage it. Eventually, since it was a cloud platform on their side, if there is some configuration necessary, which they do it. They get a notification, and they fix it very immediately if there is an issue. The response time is very good from their side, and we don't have to worry about maintenance.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Scheduling is a good feature."
"We have a lot of nightly jobs that need to be run. Therefore, we perform a lot of calculations and processes during nighttime hours."
"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."
"AppWorx Workload Automation's simplicity and powerful functionality are its most valuable features for us."
"The most valuable features of AppWorx Workload Automation are simplicity and reliability. Additionally, they recently transformed the UI which is better."
"AppWorx isn't limited to Unix or Linux. We can set it up in Windows, AWS, or Azure environments. It's not dependent on any one particular environment."
"It allows for efficient workload management and reports on the status of processes, which was a unique feature when it was first introduced."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"We lean a lot on the multi-tenancy that they offer within the product, the ability to get other people to self-manage their estate, versus having a central team do all the scheduling."
"The ability to monitor tasks that are on the open-system side as well as our mainframe side gives us a one-window view of all our processes."
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"The Universal Agent is the most valuable feature. Being agent-based and being able to go across multiple technology stacks, which is what our workflows do, Stonebranch gives us the ability to bridge those disparate technologies. It enables us to remove the dependency-gap with the agent so we know the status of the workflow at each step."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
 

Cons

"If there is a time out that happens at the tool's end, then we, as users of the product, are not able to login to the GUI."
"It is not really scaling per say because they are not putting much into it. They are trying to push their new product."
"AppWorx Workload Automation does not support mainframe environments, which limits its use for larger and older organizations like ours that still rely on mainframes."
"The internal security model can be complex when configuring multiple user groups."
"It is difficult to integrate with the Active Directory (AD)."
"AppWorx Workload Automation does not support mainframe environments, which limits its use for larger and older organizations like ours that still rely on mainframes."
"The graphical interface is pretty cool but not the best so it could use some improvement."
"Currently, I have switched to negotiating through third-party vendors for licensing, which has made it more expensive. Broadcom should address this by dealing directly with customers again."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"It would be ideal if they had the exact same features as the CA Workload Automation DE series. It would be helpful to have calendaring options."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"One hiccup we've had is due to the fact that we have other internal scheduling tools. We're able to talk to them, but we have trouble with some of the networking between them, so we're still trying to work out the kinks there."
"The Universal Controller is decent for the money it costs... It needs some work to have full features, compared to other products that are out there, specifically IBM's Workload Scheduler."
"There is a component called the OMS, which is the message broker. We rely on infrastructure, resiliency, and availability for that piece. If that could change to be highly available just as a software component, so that we don't have to provide the high-available storage, etc. for it, that would be a plus. It would just be cheaper to run."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We are satisfied with the pricing."
"Licensing options are fairly straightforward."
"The price for annual licenses is a bit expensive so pricing is rated a two out of ten."
"The cost model is based on the number of orchestrated systems used."
"When we reviewed this solution against other vendors, Stonebranch blew everybody out of the water in terms of cost."
"Stonebranch is cheaper than Control-M, so many companies are using Stonebranch."
"The price of the solution is at a medium level compared to the competition."
"Outside of licensing fees, there aren't any other costs."
"I don't have pricing information, but I do know it's cheaper than our old legacy system. Other than the standard licensing fees there are no additional costs."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.
871,469 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
University
9%
Financial Services Firm
24%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Insurance Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise22
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for AppWorx Workload Automation?
Compared to other tools, it is now expensive. Licensing now depends on execution counts as opposed to agent counts, leading to increased costs.
What needs improvement with AppWorx Workload Automation?
Currently, I have switched to negotiating through third-party vendors for licensing, which has made it more expensive. Broadcom should address this by dealing directly with customers again. Licensi...
What is your primary use case for AppWorx Workload Automation?
In general, I use Atomic Applications Manager to manage our unique servers in our cloud infrastructure, specifically for support in our manufacturing industry. We are an enterprise and utilize many...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

CA Automic Applications Manager
Stonebranch Universal Automation Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sandvik, Hanwha Life
Nissan, Coop, United Supermarkets, Groupon, CSC, Orbitz, Johnson & Johnson, BMW, Qantas.
Find out what your peers are saying about AppWorx Workload Automation vs. Stonebranch and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
871,469 professionals have used our research since 2012.