We performed a comparison between AWS Step Functions and Stonebranch based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Workload Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's Amazon, it's scalable."
"The solution is stable...The solution is easy to scale."
"The integration capability is easy, whereas building state machines is tricky."
"It's a general solution that you can adapt to your own needs and is simple to use. We like that it can be integrated with everything in the AWS suite, and that the creation of the pipeline can be done using the graphical user interface."
"AWS Step Functions acts as a high-level layer, allowing us to seamlessly integrate with microservices."
"What I like the most about Amazon Step Functions is how easy it is to use."
"One can rate all the calls and that is a good feature."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"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."
"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 ability to monitor tasks that are on the open-system side as well as our mainframe side gives us a one-window view of all our processes."
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"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."
"The interface can sometimes feel limited, as we're unable to see what AWS is running behind the scenes."
"I would like to see more data transformation features in Amazon Step Functions like additional operators and logic."
"The solution's data size limit can be improved."
"Setup took about one day. We had some errors to understand in the beginning, but now everything is working good."
"The price and support are areas with shortcomings where the solution needs to improve."
"It wasn't easy to understand the licensing model. It's like if you use just a little, it's cheap, but it becomes more expensive as you use more. It's like a hook that ties you inside the Amazon ecosystem. So, it creates a dependency."
"The solution's pricing could be cheaper. It is cheaper than Airflow."
"It is hard to coordinate the declaratory language."
"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."
"It would be ideal if they had the exact same features as the CA Workload Automation DE series. It would be helpful to have calendaring options."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"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."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"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."
AWS Step Functions is ranked 15th in Workload Automation with 9 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. AWS Step Functions is rated 7.8, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AWS Step Functions writes "Simplifies complex task automation and enhances development workflows while offering user-friendly interface, seamless scalability and efficient workflow orchestration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". AWS Step Functions is most compared with Camunda, IBM BPM, Apache Airflow, Pega BPM and Oracle BPM, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and IBM Workload Automation. See our AWS Step Functions 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.
