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 Apr 20, 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
15th
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 May 2025, in the Workload Automation category, the mindshare of AppWorx Workload Automation is 1.4%, down from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Stonebranch is 4.9%, up from 4.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
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.
Earl Diem - PeerSpot reviewer
Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets
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. Workflow development in Stonebranch is straightforward. There is something of a learning curve, but it's not very steep. Being able to develop workflows without having to train and develop some very specialized skillsets to use the tool is very useful. Stonebranch absolutely helped enable digital transformation in our company and it still is. In our automation efforts, we're pushing everything to Informatica and, as we move those ETLs, we're automating the entire workflows. In phase-one and phase-two, there were 244 jobs migrated in from other ETL platforms to Informatica, and we've automated all of those. We have almost 200 jobs remaining. We're going to have something approaching 450 workflows in Stonebranch when we're done.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We have a lot of nightly jobs that need to be run. Therefore, we perform a lot of calculations and processes during nighttime hours."
"Atomic Applications Manager is user-friendly and accommodates around 100 users who can monitor and run their jobs effectively."
"It is really a robust product."
"It is an object-based approach to task and process design in conjunction with conditional logic and event-based scheduling actions, which enables a build once/use often design methodology to be employed."
"Scheduling is a good feature."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"It allows for efficient workload management and reports on the status of processes, which was a unique feature when it was first introduced."
"The interface is good."
"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."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"I can name the aliases on the agent, so if we need a passive environment for an agent, that's one of the nice features. If our primary goes down, I can bring up the passive one and I don't have to change anything in the scheduling world. It will start running from that new server."
"When it comes to agent technology and compatibility with other vendors, from a platform perspective it was the one vendor that fit all the platforms that we have, from your old platforms - mainframe, NSK, IBM i - to the new ones, going into cloud and container"
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"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."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
"I love the Universal Controller. It's been great for us. We host it on-premise... It's High Availability, meaning there's failover from one server to the other if one goes down."
 

Cons

"The internal security model can be complex when configuring multiple user groups."
"The compliance features are limited to the server and not the entire infrastructure."
"AppWorx Workload Automation does not support mainframe environments, which limits its use for larger and older organizations like ours that still rely on mainframes."
"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."
"The scalability could improve."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"There is room for improvement with its connectivity with the Microsoft SRS system. It is very weak. They keep telling us it works with it, and technically it does, but it does not provide a lot of visibility. We have lost a lot of visibility migrating to Stonebranch, compared with just running tasks on the SRS server. That's really about the only thing that is a sore point for us."
"I have a request regarding our agent on the mainframe. It may time out when communicating to the Universal Controller, when the mainframe is extremely busy. That can cause a task which is running at that time to not see the results of the job that ran on the mainframe. It happens sporadically during times of really busy CPU usage. We're expecting that enhancement from them in the fourth quarter."
"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."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost model is based on the number of orchestrated systems used."
"The price for annual licenses is a bit expensive so pricing is rated a two out of ten."
"Licensing options are fairly straightforward."
"We are satisfied with the pricing."
"Outside of licensing fees, there aren't any other costs."
"When we reviewed this solution against other vendors, Stonebranch blew everybody out of the water in terms of cost."
"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."
"The price of the solution is at a medium level compared to the competition."
"Stonebranch is cheaper than Control-M, so many companies are using Stonebranch."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.
850,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
27%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about AppWorx Workload Automation?
The most valuable features of AppWorx Workload Automation are simplicity and reliability. Additionally, they recently transformed the UI which is better.
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...
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: April 2025.
850,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.