We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Tidal 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 valued for its strong performance, ability to handle large workloads, and user-friendly implementation. It provides comprehensive control over various systems and products. Tidal Automation is particularly praised for its efficient job scheduler and advanced real-time monitoring features.
Automic could enhance its out-of-box automation sets, language support, functionality, user interface, web-based edition features, file transfer management, pricing, and SaaS deployment. Tidal could benefit from improvements in its graphical user interface, pricing model, cloud/hybrid solution, QA testing, job migration, reporting, artificial intelligence capabilities, integration, and user-friendliness.
Service and Support: Automic Workload Automation's customer service has received varied feedback, with some customers appreciating prompt responses and useful knowledge articles, while others have encountered challenges in contacting the support team. Tidal Automation's customer service is highly regarded for its responsiveness, expertise, and consistent resolution of issues.
Ease of Deployment: Automic's initial setup duration and complexity can differ, lasting anywhere from one to five days based on the project scale and implementation. Tidal Automation's initial setup is described as simple and effortless, necessitating approximately three weeks along with a few servers and a database.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation and Tidal Automation were compared for their setup cost. Users found Automic Workload Automation to be more cost-effective and user-friendly compared to Tidal Automation. They praised Automic for its efficiency in setting up automation processes without incurring excessive expenses.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation is seen as an added cost without clear ROI figures, while Tidal Automation has demonstrated positive ROI through cost savings, enhanced efficiency, and better risk management. Tidal Automation also excels in seamless integration and fulfilling automation needs.
Comparison Results: Tidal Automation emerges as the preferred choice compared to Automic Workload Automation. The setup process for Tidal Automation is described as straightforward and easy, taking approximately three weeks, whereas Automic's setup can take anywhere from one to five days. Users highly appreciate Tidal Automation's job scheduler and single pane of glass interface, which make workload management and monitoring simple.
"We impose some standards for backup and restore operations."
"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 it always runs things automatically that you normally have to do manually, like download files."
"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 do not have to use a broad variety of agents to connect to different types of systems."
"All the components that it can use to design work flow; process automation."
"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."
"The ability the system has to dynamically create groups, schedules, and workflows is crucial to us. In a fast-paced, agile environment, our teams are very lean. Monitoring and maintaining of all the approximately 2,000,000 executions of Automic jobs are managed by only three employees. The system has been designed to be as dynamic and versatile as the business processes and teams that own them."
"We use the solution for cross-platform, cross-application workloads. That's the biggest use for us and that's the biggest advantage."
"It saves times due to automation. With some files, we do hundreds a day for a particular vendor. This would be hard to do manually. Also, the speed at which we can do this is excellent."
"Tidal Workload Automation Software provides the ability to quickly adapt to changing business requirements."
"The best feature is that it allows task scheduling based on particular occurrences, like the receipt of files, database updates, or system notifications."
"From a management standpoint, when using the solution for cross-platform, cross-application workloads, I've never had a problem with the application. It's very interactive, especially with the different security levels that they offer."
"Thinking of all the people involved in checking jobs on a daily basis, manually running jobs or auditing them through standalone tools, and trying to connect them. We have saved hundreds of hours weekly, which is substantial."
"It has been super stable. There are no complaints on stability. We would not be using it if Tidal wasn't stable."
"By leveraging machine learning algorithms, Tidal Automation can use this data to optimize turbine settings and improve overall efficiency and performance."
"The versioning and support for the lifecycle of Automic's developed solution is what we were missing. However, this is coming in version 12.2, so I am looking forward to seeing how it works."
"A little less button clicking, in the navigation of the tool itself would also help. There is a lot out there, and I understand that's what keeps the tool robust. It keeps our options open, but it's a bit click-y sometimes. To get where you need to go, you have to go through 10 levels."
"I would like to see the event engine in the next release."
"The search is sometimes a little bit slow."
"We would like to have some features with the AWI with the founding technique, which cannot currently be delivered."
"We would like to see more dashboarding into the product, maybe an embedded Java API which we would be able to load on our own."
"The user interface could be a little more user-friendly, as it is not the best out there."
"The workflows should be clearer and more expressive."
"When we patch to the next version, there is often a little thing that breaks. It has rarely been a big deal, but I always seem to have to follow up on one tiny issue. It would help if they had some better QA testing of their patches."
"For the most part, the drill-down and the logging are really good. But if we take an Informatica job, for example: We have the ability, and the operators have the ability, to actually drill down and see, at a session level, where the failure is. There is, unfortunately, no way to extract that into an actual output email or failure email. It's not that that information is not available, but extracting it into an email would be a nice-to-have."
"The user interface is the place that needs the most work. If and when we find issues with the product, they are usually in that area. If I had to choose, that's where I'd want issues, as opposed to in the engine. But the UI is average. It's a little sluggish at times and there are some bugs in it."
"They can do better reporting in terms of production statistics reporting."
"The UI might have the potential to provide a more polished and user-centric encounter, promoting seamless engagements and simplifying the navigation process for individuals interacting with the software."
"I would like more involvement with the cloud."
"One area for improvement is the command-line interface and the API to bulk-load jobs. It's a little bit kludgy, but we still manage without it. They're working on it and it's getting better all the time. In addition, the documentation for their API for creating jobs needs to be updated. It's a bit of a learning curve."
"I don't know if Tidal wants to get into the business of monitoring long-running jobs, but that could be a feature for the future: a job launching and monitoring tool. Using Tidal for monitoring doesn't seem like a good fit, but if they could offer something that did that as an add-on or include it, it might be helpful."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Tidal by Redwood is ranked 2nd in Workload Automation with 37 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Tidal by Redwood is rated 9.0. 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 Tidal by Redwood writes "Great visibility with a single pane of glass and a low learning curve". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and Automic Automation Intelligence, whereas Tidal by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs and Fortra's JAMS. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Tidal by Redwood 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.
