We performed a comparison between AutoSys 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: AutoSys Workload Automation is highly regarded for its ability to handle large workloads, user-friendly interface, efficient processing, and constant accessibility. It stands out in organizing tasks, initiating actions, and promptly processing batches of data. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is commended for its exceptional performance, visually appealing representations, and capability to establish job interdependencies. It provides regular updates and a reliable, adaptable solution.
AutoSys Workload Automation could improve its integration with cloud services, reporting and comparison of job performance, customization of reporting features and alerts, handling file transfer jobs, monitoring capabilities, advanced features and functionalities, and workload window management. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could benefit from being cloud-based, enhancing analytics, improving task monitor management, developing a mobile app for easier monitoring and calculation of job hours, and collaborating with the vendor for future releases.
Service and Support: Users have expressed high satisfaction with the customer service and support provided by Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. However, there is no specific mention of the customer service of AutoSys Workload Automation.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for AutoSys Workload Automation is praised for being simple, direct, and efficient, typically requiring no more than 10 minutes. The initial setup for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is considered average in terms of ease, with challenges arising from the intricate infrastructure.
Pricing: AutoSys Workload Automation requires a yearly subscription and an annual license for setup. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is regarded as more affordable than its rivals, receiving positive pricing ratings and offering comparable pricing to AutoSys.
ROI: AutoSys Workload Automation lacks details on ROI, whereas Stonebranch Universal Automation Center has demonstrated significant cost reductions of around 40% to 50% compared to previous tools for some users.
Comparison Results: AutoSys Workload Automation receives positive feedback for its straightforward setup, ability to handle growing workloads, user-friendly interface, efficient performance, and consistent availability. Users appreciate its simplicity, stability, and scalability. AutoSys offers advanced features and functionalities.
"It is a fairly stable solution."
"It's very easy to work with. The learning curve is not that steep."
"Automation of patch process."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of AutoSys Workload Automation is batch processing."
"We use technical support all the time. We would be lost without them. They're fantastic. Really good job. We're able to reach the right person to help us out right away."
"The flexibility in solving job scheduling challenges allows us to successfully integrate an acquired business’ fiscal close with our own, even though there is a lot of variance as to when they run in the calendar month."
"We use CA Workload Automation AE r11.3.6 to automate enterprise-wide scheduling and file transfers using an FTP plugin."
"The tasks are incredibly capable, and as long as you name them with a nice, uniform naming convention, they are very useful. You can create some interesting workflows through various machines, or you can just have it kick off single tasks. All in all, I really like the Universal Task. You can do some mutually exclusive stuff, such as an "A not B" kind of thing. It has a lot of capabilities behind the scenes."
"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."
"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."
"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 like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
"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."
"The Universal Agent is the most valuable feature. Being agent-based and being able to go across multiple technology stacks, which is what our workflows do, Stonebranch gives us the ability to bridge those disparate technologies. It enables us to remove the dependency-gap with the agent so we know the status of the workflow at each step."
"CA Workload Automation is not part of CA's strategic vision going forward."
"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."
"Needs better documentation with fully explained examples for some of the job types."
"The GUI/Workstation is weak and needs to be improved. CA is working on this right now."
"We have to escalate through channels to get to somebody who knows what's going on. It takes time that we do not necessarily have."
"The graphical interface can be improved."
"This product needs to improve its graphical user interface."
"Documentation and cross-application externals could be improved."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"One hiccup we've had is due to the fact that we have other internal scheduling tools. We're able to talk to them, but we have trouble with some of the networking between them, so we're still trying to work out the kinks there."
"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."
"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."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"There is room for improvement with its connectivity with the Microsoft SRS system. It is very weak. They keep telling us it works with it, and technically it does, but it does not provide a lot of visibility. We have lost a lot of visibility migrating to Stonebranch, compared with just running tasks on the SRS server. That's really about the only thing that is a sore point for us."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. 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 Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Automic Workload Automation and CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with Control-M, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, IBM Workload Automation and VisualCron. See our AutoSys 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.