We performed a comparison between Fortra's JAMS 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: Fortra's JAMS is highly regarded for its job dependency tracking and visualization, while Rocket Zena is praised for its user-friendly interface. JAMS offers robust automation features, while Zena excels in cross-platform job scheduling and FTP file transfer.
Fortra's JAMS client interface can be more user-friendly and efficient in terms of options retrieval. Rocket Zena lacks clarity in displaying connections between applications/components. Fortra's JAMS could enhance its accessibility by introducing a browser version and providing more comprehensive documentation. Rocket Zena would benefit from a more intuitive user interface and the availability of RPM packages for installation.
Service and Support: Fortra's JAMS customer service is commended for being quick, knowledgeable, and helpful, offering prompt solutions and comprehensive resources. Rocket Zena receives positive feedback, with responsive and knowledgeable support, although obtaining higher-level assistance may be more time-consuming.
Ease of Deployment: Fortra's JAMS initial setup is described as straightforward and easy, with users quickly deploying tasks by following webpage instructions. Rocket Zena's setup varied among users, with some finding it easier as new users but others finding it complex and requiring an understanding of different components. Integration with SAP posed a particular challenge for Zena.
Pricing: Fortra's JAMS has a setup cost in the first year, along with a yearly maintenance cost. Users see this pricing as reasonable and budget-friendly when compared to other options. Rocket Zena is recognized as a cost-effective and affordable choice, particularly suitable for small businesses.
ROI: Fortra's JAMS and Rocket Zena have both delivered positive results in terms of saving time, increasing productivity, and offering cost-effectiveness. Fortra's JAMS also provides ease of use and visibility into job failures, while Rocket Zena has improved accuracy and alleviated stress for engineers and administrators.
Comparison Results: Fortra's JAMS is the preferred choice when compared to Rocket Zena. Users appreciate JAMS for its easy setup, ability to handle job dependencies, extensive automation features, user-friendly interface, and excellent customer support. JAMS is favored due to its overall functionality and ease of use.
"I didn't know about JAMS because I don't have a person with any challenges with the purchase administration. The feature or the user interface is user-friendly because of the readable icons or very descriptive icons. Though I'm a beginning user of JAMS, I had no issues using it."
"The most valuable feature is the easily accessible data in the database because we run a lot of SQL scripting against the database."
"It makes everything that we want to do so much easier. We have had a number of instances in the past where we have had developers who have been working on a project, and even though we have had JAMS for all these years, they will create some SQL Server Agent job, or something like that, to run a task. When it is in code review and development is complete, the question always comes around, "Can JAMS do this?" The answer has always been, "Yes." Pretty much anything we have ever developed could be run by JAMS."
"JAMS is easier to use and cheaper than our previous solution. The installation is more straightforward, and JAMS has a graphical user interface, so it's more accessible."
"The planning capabilities are most valuable."
"The ability to sequence jobs is excellent; it means we don't have to schedule them individually, and if one fails, it doesn't unwind the entire workflow."
"The most valuable feature for us is that it's DR-ready. With respect to disaster recovery, it has the built-in capability for failover to our DR site. If all of the required ports are open, it can be done seamlessly."
"The scheduling and execution of jobs are the most valuable features. The scheduling is important because if there is a task we want to execute at 4:00 AM, there's no way we will have someone who can manually run the job. In addition, we execute 100 to 200 jobs per day, and manual intervention is not an option."
"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 like the whole product, but specifically, I like the license part. It's very easy to acquire a license for this product."
"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."
"I have used other tools with similar capabilities; it's the ease of use."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the FTP file transfer."
"The UI could be better. There were some things that were not quite intuitive, such as the search tool. When we tried to search for jobs, we had to clear the entire search and then go in and enter the new search query. That's something that wasn't intuitive for a new user."
"The only thing that they could improve on is the fact that they don't have a browser version of JAMS. They've got all the bits and pieces there if you want to build your own web version of it. It does come with a web client, but it's pretty clunky. They could improve on that."
"It is important to receive notifications if a charged job fails and SQL is halted. JAMS does not provide halted notifications by default, which is a critical feature that needs to be added."
"We have had a lot of people working from home who can't always connect to the JAMS server. We use VPN, as most companies do, and we have it set up so that everybody can access the JAMS server. But many times, our people cannot access it... JAMS could do a better job of telling you what the problem is when you try to log in to the server."
"There could be a better simulation for banning the termination. You have to simulate every one of the processes in order to have an idea for better planning. This kind of simulation is broken and needs improvement."
"If there were a softcover book on how to really take advantage of all of JAMS' tools, I would buy it. I do better with training books than online searching, so a book would be helpful."
"The tabs in the JAMS file transfer could be clearer. It would help us demonstrate to our client that JAMS not only automates jobs but also does fast transfers, and it's an alternative that supports and filters different kinds of platforms. Filtering file transfers will be highly beneficial to them."
"Fortra is getting much better with documentation and examples, but there is still room for improvement."
"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."
"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."
"The UI is not intuitive, and it would be nice if there was a web interface."
"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 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."
"The documentation has room for improvement."
"In the next release, I would like the user experience to be improved. The user interface should be more appealing to gen-z."
"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."
Fortra's JAMS is ranked 5th in Workload Automation with 27 reviews while Rocket Zena is ranked 12th in Workload Automation with 9 reviews. Fortra's JAMS is rated 9.0, while Rocket Zena is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Fortra's JAMS writes "We can scale up our organization's scheduling and automation without having to add staff to the department". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rocket Zena writes "A continuously evolving, stable solution, with responsive support". Fortra's JAMS is most compared with Control-M, Tidal by Redwood, AutoSys Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs and VisualCron, whereas Rocket Zena is most compared with Control-M, Rocket Zeke, IBM Workload Automation, AutoSys Workload Automation and ActiveBatch by Redwood. See our Fortra's JAMS 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.