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.
"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."
"It is stable, it works, and it does what it is supposed to."
"The most valuable feature of AutoSys Workload Automation is batch processing."
"It gives a real-time view of all the batch processing that we have. Monitoring-wise, it is really good."
"I find that it provides better agility in regards to job execution features."
"Automic Automation Engine provides us the ability to map logic using a scripting language."
"AutoSys Workload Automation is a stable solution."
"The solution has been stable."
"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."
"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."
"When it comes to agent technology and compatibility with other vendors, from a platform perspective it was the one vendor that fit all the platforms that we have, from your old platforms - mainframe, NSK, IBM i - to the new ones, going into cloud and container"
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"The solution could improve by having support for container environments."
"More benefits with the agent upgrades, and that's about it. Other than that we have no complaints with it. It's been awesome."
"The graphical interface can be improved."
"The WCC could be improved."
"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."
"The reporting system, currently, could be better."
"It lacks support and integration with cloud computing platforms."
"This product needs to improve its graphical user interface."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"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."
"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 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."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"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."
"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."
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.
