We performed a comparison between Automic 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: Automic Workload Automation is highly regarded for its strength, scalability, and straightforward setup. Rocket Zena receives acclaim for its user-friendliness, intuitive interface, and the inclusion of diagrams. Automic excels in managing various operating systems and products, whereas Zena streamlines processes and ensures a pleasant user experience.
Automic Workload Automation has room for improvement in industry standardization, plug-and-play automation processes, language support, user interface, web-based edition, file transfer capabilities, pricing, and support. Rocket Zena requires enhancements in visibility, agent monitoring, process limitations, error alerts, UI loading time, intuitive UI, RPM packages, task stacking, documentation, accessibility, server communication, and agent functionality.
Service and Support: Automic Workload Automation has a varied reputation for customer service. Some customers appreciate the prompt responses and informative articles, while others struggle to reach the support team. The duration for issue resolution is also a concern. Rocket Zena's customer service garners praise for its knowledgeable and responsive technical support. However, acquiring higher-level support may require more time.
Ease of Deployment: Automic Workload Automation has a relatively quick and efficient initial setup that can be completed by a small team in a matter of days. Rocket Zena's setup process can take longer, ranging from a day to two weeks, and involves understanding various components.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a high setup cost. Rocket Zena is seen as cost-effective and affordable, making it a suitable choice for small companies.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation did not offer precise ROI figures and was not renewed due to cost-saving efforts. Rocket Zena has resulted in notable time savings, and enhanced accuracy, and is deemed an indispensable tool with a favorable return on investment.
Comparison Results: Rocket Zena is the preferred choice when compared to Automic Workload Automation. Users appreciate its ease of use, intuitive interface, and simplified processes. They find it to be user-friendly, especially in comparison to similar products. Rocket Zena also offers containerized deployment with Docker, cross-platform job scheduling, and a web-based client, making it more usable.
"As far as our schedules, if we have problems, we can create our own process in the automation, which is good."
"The reason we went with Automic is very simple. We were using ESP, which was a Broadcom product. So, Automic happened to be a natural fit. It was a much easier transition from ESP to Automic. We had familiarity with the vendor and the product."
"The most valuable parts are the scalability and flexibility, where you can do whatever you think, then you can realize it in the product and have many ways to do it."
"We have all of our payroll being done in the platform. There are a lot of different processes that need to be taken care of, and they all need to be linked together. When you put them into a workflow, and you know that you've built logic into that workflow, and you have alerting, it's something you can step back from. You don't have to be worried about every single piece of that puzzle. If something goes wrong, you have confidence that some alerting will let you know. It streamlines, it makes things go faster, less eyes on glass."
"Support is good and it works fine."
"I have found new methods for converting scripts from Dollar U to ONE Automation. For example, I take the dynamic library from Dollar U and put it in the dynamic binary library in ONE Automation. This enables us to use Dollar U scripts in ONE Automation."
"Automic is 99 percent stable. We've never had a problem with stability."
"You gain a lot of time and effort because you can automatize many things. Repetitive tasks costs us, so we can reduce them to zero effort and minimal costs by using the 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."
"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."
"I have found the scheduling feature the most valuable. I can map dependencies by using ASG-Zena. It gives a nice, quick visualization as to where things are."
"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 have used other tools with similar capabilities; it's the ease of use."
"I like the whole product, but specifically, I like the license part. It's very easy to acquire a license for this product."
"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 would not recommend using Automic's technical support for complex problems."
"With every new version, things that would previously work, Automic breaks them. So, we have to report the new bugs. Therefore, every time when we patch the system, there is usually a new bug or a feature that was working, then it stops working."
"During installation, some database elective issues popped up. These took some time to fix, but after some back and forth communication, these issues were resolved."
"We would like to have some features with the AWI with the founding technique, which cannot currently be delivered."
"It has a very complicated interface, which could be made to be more user-friendly."
"I would also like to see a little bit more connectivity, more, "Play nice with other toys." For instance, we have IServ as our primary tool for our service request tickets. In order for it to play nice with Automic, we had to actually create a file and put it somewhere, where Automic can see it. I would like to see more connectivity with other tools, or more compatibility with other tools."
"I hope in the next release that they will solve all the bugs which they have found in development."
"Some of the things we don't do are mainly because we don't know how to do them. Hands-on training can be expensive, so we find other ways to work around things to forgo the hands-on training. It is also an issue because we are a Linux shop and most trainers are Windows-based."
"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."
"One area where it could be improved is communication between the different servers. Sometimes there are processes that have already been completed but we get a status notification that they're still active."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like the user experience to be improved. The user interface should be more appealing to gen-z."
"The UI is not intuitive, and it would be nice if there was a web interface."
"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."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Rocket Zena is ranked 12th in Workload Automation with 9 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Rocket Zena is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Automic Workload Automation writes "A tool requiring an easy setup phase that provides its users with flexibility and flow chart visibility ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rocket Zena writes "A continuously evolving, stable solution, with responsive support". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and AppWorx Workload Automation, whereas Rocket Zena is most compared with Control-M, Rocket Zeke, IBM Workload Automation, AutoSys Workload Automation and ActiveBatch by Redwood. See our Automic 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.