We performed a comparison between AutoSys Workload Automation and Fortra's JAMS based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AutoSys Workload Automation is highly regarded for its scalability, user-friendly interface, fast performance, and reliable accessibility. Fortra's JAMS is recognized for its impressive capacity to manage job dependencies, advanced automation features, and comprehensive monitoring and control functionalities.
AutoSys Workload Automation should enhance its integration with cloud services, reporting and comparison of job performance, customization of reporting features and alerts, file transfer job handling, workflow management, and workload window management. Fortra's JAMS should focus on improving its client interface, search capability, training resources, exception handling, browser version compatibility, custom execution methods, integration with Microsoft group-managed service accounts, source control features, documentation, ACL or access permission area, connectivity issues, error notifications, and compliance with the open-source GPG program.
Service and Support: AutoSys is highly regarded for its standardized approach and mature product, while JAMS is known for its fast response time and abundance of documentation and training resources.
Ease of Deployment: Users find the initial setup process for AutoSys Workload Automation to be simple, quick, and uncomplicated, taking approximately 10 minutes or less. Fortra's JAMS setup is also straightforward and easy, with users able to quickly deploy tasks by following instructions on the webpage.
Pricing: AutoSys Workload Automation has a yearly subscription and an annual license. It requires an additional cost for agents, while the server setup has a one-time license and an annual maintenance cost. Fortra's JAMS has an initial license cost for the first year, along with an annual maintenance cost. Users consider JAMS to be reasonable and cost-effective when compared to similar products.
ROI: AutoSys Workload Automation and Fortra's JAMS both offer significant benefits in terms of time savings, increased productivity, and cost-effectiveness. AutoSys provides improved reliability, scalability, and enhanced visibility and control, while JAMS offers automation and improved process robustness.
Comparison Results: AutoSys Workload Automation is preferred over Fortra's JAMS. Users praise AutoSys for its scalability, ease of use, speed, and availability. They appreciate its user-friendly interface, robustness in triggering jobs, and ability to handle large volumes. They also like its simplicity, stability, and ability to connect different software processes.
"To me, what's most valuable in AutoSys Workload Automation is its robustness and quickness. The tool can trigger jobs within a few milliseconds, and it can handle large volumes of jobs."
"It gives a real-time view of all the batch processing that we have. Monitoring-wise, it is really good."
"The solution has been stable."
"The most valuable feature of AutoSys Workload Automation is user-friendliness. If someone has some knowledge of the tool they can use it."
"AutoSys Workload Automation is scalable."
"The most valuable features of AutoSys Workload Automation are the file transfer protocol and file watcher. The solution has a user-friendly user interface. It is very simple to use. You have a scope of all your jobs, jobs are what you call tasks that you will automate in the solution. It lets you monitor everything in these jobs."
"The initial setup is easy."
"It is very valuable for us when we are trying to arrange or orchestrate jobs into a system. It is helpful for triggering jobs for a scheduled task."
"Being able to create a series of chained jobs, which are basically linked jobs is valuable."
"The feature or capability to import a job is most valuable. We can import an existing job from different platforms, and all the configurations get migrated as well without modifying the code, job schedule, etc."
"One of the things I like the most, as a SQL DBA, is the fact that we can manipulate tables in the background. Also, the fact that you can have your own views and work with the product the way it fits best is a very helpful feature."
"Our company is based on data. Everything we do is data-driven, so it has been very valuable having one place where we can process all of the data and do batch schedules with chunks of data."
"I like how you can add new execution methods on the fly. It isn't overly complex to add Python script support to an execution method in the JAMS system. The scheduling is excellent. You can schedule a maintenance window and take that resource unit out of everything. It halts all of the jobs."
"We also use the solution’s Interactive Agents. If we need to push something to our dealer portal, we can just drop a file in a folder and it goes. Running interactive tasks helps me users focus on business processes since I don’t have to take care of running the jobs manually."
"The code-driven automation for more complex scheduling requirements frees up time because it's really easy to use... It's almost like a stand-alone software that we can't live without."
"The alerting in it is really targeted... you can set specific alerting so that if jobs in a given folder fail, certain people are alerted. You can also set security at the folder level, so that only people in those areas can go set them. That means that the alerting and security can be set at a very granular level."
"The reporting system, currently, could be better."
"I am not sure whether it is our limitation or a tool limitation because we haven't yet explored it, but whenever we look for different types of reporting, we have some limitations in getting those. It could be because of the way we have set it up internally in our enterprise, but it would be helpful if we can customize the reporting features and some of the alerts that can go out. When we connect enterprise systems, each one looks for a different use case, and if we can get different types of reporting, it will be helpful."
"AutoSys Workload Automation could improve in the Linux environment. The previous versions of the AutoSys Workload Automation let you take the profile of the user that you were using to run the tasks that you're going to automate, but in the latest versions, you can't do that, you need to make more definitions and it's a little bit difficult. It was easier in the previous versions."
"An area for improvement in AutoSys Workload Automation is that it lacks advanced features or advanced built-in functionalities found in competitors, for example, an advanced workflow feature. Even the handling or notification from AutoSys Workload Automation isn't the best in the industry. Other products have very good workflow-related functionalities such as ActiveBatch that's missing in AutoSys Workload Automation, so I wish the tool had those features."
"We are trying to see if we can use this from a cloud perspective with AWS, Azure, and other clouds, but it seems that there is no cloud integration in this product. We would like to see cloud integration. We are very pleased with this solution, but we are moving our application to the cloud, and we found out that it doesn't support any cloud features. So, we are trying to find a replacement."
"AutoSys Workload Automation could improve the integration."
"We had a few issues, however, the issues were more on the infrastructure rather than with the application itself."
"It would be helpful to be able to monitor and manage workload windows so we could minimize downstream applications. This would allow us easier access to the applications."
"I would like a simple web interface that I could give to my team to go in and kill jobs or see why jobs died so that we don't have to drill down deeper into the application and know everything about it. It would be good to have a really clean web engine that would say here are the jobs running. We can then click to see the time running and whether any of them fails and other similar things. I know they have one, but it's not very simplistic."
"The biggest area with room for improvement is the area that my organization benefits the most from using JAMS, and that is in custom execution methods. I happen to have a very good C# developer. Ever since we got JAMS, he has spent a lot of time talking to JAMS developers, researching the JAMS libraries, and creating custom execution methods. He's gotten very good at it. He is now able to create them and maintain them very easily, but that knowledge was hard-won knowledge. It was difficult to come by, and if I should ever lose this developer, then I would be hard-pressed to find anyone who could create JAMS custom execution methods quite as well as he can since there really isn't all that much help, such as documentation or information, available on how to create custom execution methods."
"JAMS handles exceptions fairly well but there are some areas where it might improve a little bit. It has to do with being able to automatically handle exceptions, out-of-the-box, rather than having to code them."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see the ability to interface with Microsoft group-managed service accounts, but they're still in the research phase. They need to ensure everything's legit and safe. The report designer and dashboards could also be improved. We're running 7.3, so I don't know if they have updated the reporting in 7.5, but I think the reports and dashboards could be better."
"When looking at a folder in JAMS with many jobs, it would be good to have better information in the list display of what's inside those jobs. We get some information, but other important details are missing."
"As an admin, I would like to have a web-based GUI instead of a client application that we have to install on our PCs."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 8 reviews while Fortra's JAMS is ranked 5th in Workload Automation with 21 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Fortra's JAMS is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Robust, quick, and can trigger jobs within a few milliseconds, but lacks advanced workflow-related features found in its competitors". On the other hand, 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". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Tidal Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and CA Workload Automation iXp, whereas Fortra's JAMS is most compared with Control-M, Tidal Automation, ActiveBatch Workload Automation, VisualCron and Dollar Universe Workload Automation. See our AutoSys Workload Automation vs. Fortra's JAMS 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.
