We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and IBM Workload Automation 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 praised for its strength, adaptability, and straightforward setup. It provides the capability to oversee various operating systems and products. IBM Workload Automation permits users to ask for added features and can initiate tasks across multiple nodes.
Automic Workload Automation can enhance its offerings in various aspects including pre-configured automation sets, multilingual support, features, user interface, web-based edition functionalities, file transfer management, pricing options, and customer assistance. IBM Workload Automation faces performance difficulties, navigation complexities, and requires enhancements in job dependencies, scheduling refreshes, simulation capabilities, system stability, reporting visibility, and API integration.
Service and Support: Automic Workload Automation is known for its satisfactory customer service, while IBM Workload Automation is highly regarded for its exceptional technical support. IBM's lab advocacy program offers in-depth code support, which sets it apart. Automic may encounter challenges in identifying the source of certain issues.
Ease of Deployment: Automic Workload Automation's initial setup duration varies based on the project size, requiring a team of one to three individuals. IBM Workload Automation's setup may pose challenges for individuals unfamiliar with IBM tools. Nevertheless, with guidance, the process becomes relatively easy.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a higher setup cost as it is determined by the number of systems being orchestrated. IBM. Automic's pricing is considered to be one of the most expensive in the market.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation's value was not mentioned, however, it is often viewed as an extra cost. IBM Workload Automation strives to enhance efficiency, decrease expenses, and boost productivity, with ROI differing depending on specific objectives and use cases.
Comparison Results: Automic Workload Automation is the preferred option over IBM Workload Automation,. Automic stands out for its strength, scalability, simplicity of implementation, and wide range of features. It enables management of various operating systems and products, which is particularly beneficial for environments with a combination of outdated and modern technologies. Automic also provides predefined templates for specific tasks and allows different users to have access.
"It is 100% stable. We have no downtime. We have 24/7 production throughout the year."
"It's very hard to transfer the feeling when you have a platform that came to handle infrastructure issues, but at the end of the day, they are making real changes and impacting our business level, which is amazing, because it's very uncommon. That's it, basicalSly."
"We have two nodes that are highly available. You can add new nodes if you need that. You can take a node, a total node, down and still be operating fine. It has a lot of scaling to it."
"The Zero Upgrade feature is the most valuable."
"We have seen improvements in time efficiency and cost resources, because we are mainly focused on the SAP area, and its automation in that part."
"It is technology agnostic. It works with all the different legacy solutions we have and it allows us to look at things in one location, as opposed to going to a lot of different places."
"The solution is integrated across all applications and platforms in our company. We can provide everything from the very first data source to the data target in one immense code."
"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."
"This solution has a request feature where users can request the added features they need to have developed. Based on client voting for those features, these are developed and released."
"The technical support is great, the product is easy-to-use, and it is stable."
"The most important feature is the creation of folders. It's a really great feature because you can organize the process with naming conventions."
"The whole product is valuable because it is a tool for batch automation."
"I have supported this product in literally 100s of different environments and its unmatched in its ability to scale to any size."
"The project we worked on involved the running of nearly 24,000 job instances in a single day, so I would say that the solution is stable."
"The support from Cisco is very good. I was with them as a company for 40 years"
"Technical support from IBM is very good."
"Content of file transfers cannot be searched by the system, but has to be done by the user interface. This is not good, as it has been erased often."
"There were many bugs in the last version. For example, we could only use capital letters for searching for agent names. Also, we had a problem with ONE Automation where we couldn't use the PGA and SGA in Oracle Databases for resolving RAM because the last version didn't have this capability."
"ServiceNow creates problems with the Automic entry of the connector, so the stability could be a little bit better with this product."
"There are pain points, like anything else. Sometimes, things they say work, and sometimes, they don't work. You need to find out why they don't work and then go back and have them fixed."
"We would like to have some features with the AWI with the founding technique, which cannot currently be delivered."
"I would not recommend using Automic's technical support for complex problems."
"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 would like more training on workload automation, because I do not have a complete insight of the product yet."
"Slow down on the releases a bit. I fully understand that IWA functionality is increasing at an amazing rate, but trying to keep up with the upgrades is rough."
"It should support other schedulers that aren't IBM products."
"Scalability-wise, it can be a little bit challenging."
"It is missing some features and can improve in areas where the competition is somewhat better like linking job dependencies."
"It would be helpful to have a mobile app that could be used to follow the job schedule."
"The performance of the previous versions could be better."
"This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly."
"The schedule refreshes daily and that's a challenge for us."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while IBM Workload Automation is ranked 13th in Workload Automation with 28 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while IBM Workload Automation is rated 8.2. 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 IBM Workload Automation writes "With an easy setup phase in place, agent-based installation can be done in minutes". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and OpCon, whereas IBM Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, HCL Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Stonebranch. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. IBM Workload Automation 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.
