No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

ASG-TMON Performance Analyzer vs Stonebranch comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

JAMS
Sponsored
Ranking in Workload Automation
3rd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
42
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ASG-TMON Performance Analyzer
Ranking in Workload Automation
36th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Stonebranch
Ranking in Workload Automation
9th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Workload Automation category, the mindshare of JAMS is 3.0%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ASG-TMON Performance Analyzer is 0.5%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Stonebranch is 4.7%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Workload Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
JAMS3.0%
Stonebranch4.7%
ASG-TMON Performance Analyzer0.5%
Other91.8%
Workload Automation
 

Featured Reviews

LV
Principal Data Base And Infrastructure Engineer at a outsourcing company with 501-1,000 employees
Automation has replaced nightly monitoring and delivers reliable, unified job scheduling
We have really enjoyed working with JAMS in terms of notifications, alerts, and streamlining. There used to be a process with Automate, which is another product from Fortra, but even before that, the other division of the company that we were merging with had a tool that was built in-house called a file handler or file distributor. It was an in-house developed tool, but it was not as streamlined or as efficient as JAMS is. We literally had to have a dedicated nighttime person monitoring. Although we are 24/7, the divisions of the company that we were using JAMS for have been small scale. While we have automated it, we have streamlined it in such a way that notifications go out and alerts go out, but if there is anything, then we get paged and alerted, and if anything needs to happen at midnight, we can wake up. On the other hand, with the tool I mentioned, the file handler and distributor, we used to have a dedicated nighttime person that had to be sitting and monitoring it to see when a file arrived, whether it met the conditions, and then execute the next particular job. By using JAMS, we have gained a lot more efficiencies in terms of all of those to streamline it, and there is no necessary need for having an overnight engineer just keeping an eye on all of this.
Use ASG-TMON Performance Analyzer?
Leave a review
Saktheeswaran Ravichandran - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Administrator at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Modern workload automation has unified job scheduling and reporting across regions and platforms
I feel that Stonebranch can be improved in certain areas. Since I have been a Control-M user for a very long time and have also used Dollar Universe in the past, creating a task or job and then creating a schedule with time triggers and other triggers in different objects feels a bit complicated compared to other tools in the market where everything is laid out in a single pane and scheduling is easy. Here, since we have a task and a time schedule and time trigger separately from the task, I am getting a bit confused becoming accustomed to those concepts, but that can be managed more easily.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Construction Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
No data available
Financial Services Firm
22%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Insurance Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise20
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise25
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for JAMS?
I believe the pricing and licensing were fair. I was not here when that process took place and do not know exactly, b...
What needs improvement with JAMS?
When it comes to improvements for JAMS, I think upgrading and migrating some of the current processes could benefit f...
What is your primary use case for JAMS?
Our main use case for JAMS is to automate our data pump backups for our PeopleSoft Oracle system, as well as run a my...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been straightforward.
What needs improvement with Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?
Stonebranch is more expensive compared with GoAnywhere MFT because they provide many types of services, protocols, an...
What is your primary use case for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?
Currently, I only work with Stonebranch. We are partners of Stonebranch, as they are an OEM. I am from the technical ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
ASG-PERFMAN, ASG-TMON PA, TMON PA
Stonebranch Universal Automation Center
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Teradata, Arconic, General Dynamics, Yum!, CVS Health, Comcast, Ghiradelli, & Boston’s Children’s Hospital
Primerica Financial Services
Nissan, Coop, United Supermarkets, Groupon, CSC, Orbitz, Johnson & Johnson, BMW, Qantas.
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC, Broadcom, JAMS Software and others in Workload Automation. Updated: April 2026.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.