We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Stonebranch Universal Automation Center 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 appreciated for its strong and flexible capability, scalability, and straightforward setup process. It provides extensive control over various operating systems and products, accompanied by pre-designed templates and convenient access through web browsers. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center stands out in terms of efficiency, visually appealing graphical representation, and the capability to establish dependencies between different tasks. It offers an intuitive solution, regularly enhances its software, and provides valuable technical support.
Automic Workload Automation has room for improvement in terms of industry standardization, plug-and-play automation processes, language support, functionality, user interface, web-based edition, manage file transfer area, and pricing. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could enhance its offerings by providing cloud deployment, improving analytics, offering a mobile app for task monitoring, and collaborating with the vendor for future releases.
Service and Support: The customer service for Automic Workload Automation has garnered varying feedback, as some customers encountered challenges when trying to contact the support team. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is widely commended for its exceptional and consistently accessible technical support.
Ease of Deployment: The setup for Automic Workload Automation can take anywhere from one to five days, depending on the project size. The setup for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is considered average in terms of ease, with the deployment process lasting approximately six months. Implementation can take one to two years.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a high setup cost. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is more affordable compared to its rivals, making it a favored option among businesses.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation did not offer specific ROI figures, but the user opted not to renew the license in order to reduce costs. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center led to a cost reduction.
Comparison Results: Automic Workload Automation is favored over Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. Users appreciate Automic's strength, scalability, and ease of implementation, as well as its extensive features and architecture. Automic is considered user-friendly with a simple interface.
"Automic is 99 percent stable. We've never had a problem with stability."
"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."
"The initial setup was quite simple because they have a manual which tells you in a simple way of how to install it step-by-step."
"Compared to other products, the stability is remarkable."
"As far as our schedules, if we have problems, we can create our own process in the automation, which is good."
"The most valuable feature is that it can be installed on any type of application on every kind of operating system and the agent can use it on these applications and systems."
"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."
"We can take something from crontab, something that's very nitty-gritty and low-level, and be able to put it into a nice interface, and be able to track it at every junction along the way, add alerting, interdependencies."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the reliability of the agents, because we need them accessible and we need to run stuff. The agent technology and compatibility are top-notch."
"Stonebranch performs well, and the graphical representation is excellent. Overall, it requires more technical effort from our teams, but the solution is intuitive, so anybody can use it."
"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."
"We lean a lot on the multi-tenancy that they offer within the product, the ability to get other people to self-manage their estate, versus having a central team do all the scheduling."
"It is a bit of a problem, because they like to do email ping-pong via their web page. Sometimes, it would be much easier if someone would call you on the phone."
"Most of our issues are related to the system, not the job scheduling, such as, bugs and unexpected downtime of the application or database."
"Our area with the CA solution for DR is not really concerning directly to Automic, but to all of the DevOps, a word which is something that everybody is trying to touch on today in their daily business. There is also some gap that's a little bit hard to understand or to implement because not all the organizations are the same. When you are adopting DevOps, you may need to be more flexible in your processes."
"Today, we use a rich client for this product. In the future, or for the next release, they will be using a web interface. This web interface is not as scalable as the rich client for us. The web client is not 100 percent programmed as we need it."
"For the user interface of version 12.1, I cannot find a lot of utilities and objects from previous versions, making me change my habits. This is not good."
"There are some problems when using the new interface."
"Choosing Automic Workload Automation essentially locks us into their ecosystem, making it nearly impossible to switch to a different product."
"Its dashboard can be improved. In version 12, they have already moved to a web-based interface from a UI. We are looking into this feature now. We are also looking for available APIs that we can use to interface the engine into our other systems. There should be a subservice facility that we can use to interface with Microsoft Teams and send out authorization on job executions. We have seen a feature like this in other products that we are looking into."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"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's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"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."
"Occasionally, we have an agent that doesn't come back up after patching. That doesn't happen very often... It's really just a restart of the agent and it comes back up. But that might be one thing that could be improved."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"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."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. 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 Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and ActiveBatch by Redwood, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and AppWorx Workload Automation. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Stonebranch 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.
