Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CA Process Automation vs OpenText Operations Orchestration comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

CA Process Automation
Ranking in Process Automation
36th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Operations Orchest...
Ranking in Process Automation
20th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of CA Process Automation is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Operations Orchestration is 0.7%, down from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

SJ
Added value to the delivery of services and the customer experience
We design end-to-end automation solutions for repetitive tasks performed by IT support teams This tool is used in my organization for automating IT infrastructure related incidents or service requests.  Built-in operators available for most integrations. Easy to manage. Attended/unattended…
Ahmed Salman - PeerSpot reviewer
Increases productivity with automation and robust orchestration capabilities
The community is very powerful, with extensive knowledge bases available. There are ready-made workflows, integration with other products, a nice user interface, and reporting. The tool is flexible, agent-based or agentless. It allows significant automation and has robust orchestration and reporting capabilities. It is easy to configure and use, leading to increased efficiency across our IT processes.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It is easy to debug and troubleshoot."
"This tool is used in my organization for automating IT infrastructure related incidents or service requests."
"The product is good functionality-wise. I am impressed with the tool's flexibility in customization."
"The community is very powerful, with extensive knowledge bases available."
"It has reduced the time taken to go to market. In the past, we were struggling with building these integrations, but now the process has sped up and there is an added advantage of quick delivery. In addition, it is an agent-less solution, which provides more flexibility in terms of multiple options."
"It's very stable. If you ask me for the success rate metrics, it's more than 90% for both."
"In my environment, if I want to shut down all tools in one shot, I can create a workflow and run the workflow to shut down all tools in one go."
 

Cons

"OCR capability should be added as a feature."
"Make some of the features more open source that way developers can have more flexibility."
"Somehow the product group within CA left the product dry from some regular expression functionality."
"It needs auto-triggering of workflows based on machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI)."
"I would prefer the addition of ready-made workflows for common scenarios such as Oracle database switchovers or Exchange server scenarios."
"The tool's UI needs to be improved. It needs to have better administration features in future releases."
"The price is an area that should be addressed because the price is high."
"There were a lot of scalability issues that we initially faced. Whenever I tried to deploy 100-200 endpoints, it became a huge challenge. We had to actually start using other tools like Tivoli Endpoint Management in order to patch the issues."
"Only the tool's support can be a drawback where improvements are needed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It has provided ROI by auto resolving incidents or requests in the ITSM queue, improved MTTR and SLA adherence, and added value to the delivery of services and the customer experience."
"There are a lot of automation savings from any process which is repeatable."
"I do not have experience with the pricing or licensing of the product."
"The cost is very high compared to anything else available."
"The tool is expensive. I rate the tool a six if one is cheap and ten is very expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Operations Orchestration?
The pricing is medium, and the automation helps in cost and time savings, resulting in substantial value for money.
What needs improvement with Operations Orchestration?
I would prefer the addition of ready-made workflows for common scenarios such as Oracle database switchovers or Exchange server scenarios. This would save time by not starting from scratch each time.
What advice do you have for others considering Operations Orchestration?
This tool serves as a central management hub, allowing seamless control of various IT processes via one console. I rate this solution eight out of ten.
 

Also Known As

CA IT Process Automation Manager
Micro Focus Operations Orchestration, Operations Orchestration, HPOO, HPE Operations Orchestration
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Unum, HCL Technologies, Logicalis
Casablanca INT, Internet Initiative Japan, Railway Information Systems, Samsung SDS, and Turkcell.
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Process Automation vs. OpenText Operations Orchestration and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.