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.
"CA Workload Automation AutoSys Edition is one of the most powerful schedulers that you have on the open systems, or going between Window servers; to be able to schedule and take advantage of the different powers that the automation has with it."
"This solution enables us to improve our daily processing times. We can do everything faster than before we used this solution."
"It streamlines processing really well, so we're able to cut down on our processing times."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The most valuable feature of AutoSys Workload Automation is user-friendliness. If someone has some knowledge of the tool they can use it."
"I prefer AutoSys over the other ones out there for ease of use, ease of understanding, and getting people to understand how the tool works."
"We don't have to manually run things anymore. We can have the work that a team of 50 people would do, all inside of one platform."
"This solution has made my clients' workplaces a lot less labor-intensive."
"It has definitely drastically improved our capabilities to scale our automation. Before JAMS, there were a lot of manual processes. We had a couple of operators who spent all day doing that. A lot of the time with human intervention and human processes, it is as good as the person who may be following a procedure and human error is a big problem."
"We looked at other companies, like VisualCron, that were cheaper, but one of the main sticking points was the fact that they wouldn't have provided a central location for us to monitor across all servers. That was one of the biggest selling points of JAMS."
"The planning capabilities are most valuable."
"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 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 fact that we no longer need to use Excel spreadsheets is huge. Before JAMS, every group was keeping track of their own batch jobs. Nobody really knew what the other jobs were. So, if jobs failed, other groups wouldn't necessarily know. With JAMS, everything is done through a single scheduler. You can choose who to notify."
"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."
"We see improvement possibilities in the processing provision of predefined evaluations or individual objects, or in the Self Service portal, which can be used by any user to monitor objects or start objects."
"More benefits with the agent upgrades, and that's about it. Other than that we have no complaints with it. It's been awesome."
"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."
"CA Workload Automation is not part of CA's strategic vision going forward."
"They could do better supporting it. They have too many of the same type of products, so sometimes it doesn't get as much attention as it should."
"There is a difference between a web interface and the thick client interface. We particularly like a thick client interface, and it has gone away."
"It lacks support and integration with cloud computing platforms."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It does validations when you try to delete an object and if there are any dependencies in place, the deletion process will not proceed... there is no information provided as to what it was that caused the validation to fail... it's quite a tedious process to find which object is getting in the way."
"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."
"Fortra is getting much better with documentation and examples, but there is still room for improvement."
"The documentation is not super... It's not as quick and slick as I'd like it to be."
"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."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while Fortra's JAMS is ranked 5th in Workload Automation with 27 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while Fortra's JAMS is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". 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, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Stonebranch and Automic Workload Automation, whereas Fortra's JAMS is most compared with Control-M, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs and VisualCron. 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.
