We performed a comparison between IBM Workload Automation and Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: IBM Workload Automation provides client-driven feature development, multi-node job triggering, and easy batch application tracking. Redwood Software stands out with its powerful job definition capabilities, simplified job management, error-handling, and integration with multiple systems.
The review highlights areas where IBM Workload Automation can improve, such as performance, navigation, job dependencies, daily schedule refreshes, stability, reporting visibility, and integration with new technologies. Redwood can enhance its reporting features, fix minor issues, improve monitoring and alert service, add role-based access, enhance metrics explorer, incorporate machine learning and AI capabilities, and provide more robust reporting and analytics capabilities.
Service and Support: Customers have praised IBM Workload Automation's technical support, particularly their lab advocacy program for code support. However, some challenges exist in pinpointing the origin of specific issues. Redwood has generally received positive feedback regarding their support, although there is room for improvement.
Ease of Deployment: IBM Workload Automation's initial setup can be difficult for those who are not familiar with IBM tools or application development. However, with help from an IBM engineer or vendor, the process becomes relatively easy. The initial setup for Redwood Software is considered complex and time-consuming due to the large number of jobs and the complexity of the existing system.
Pricing: IBM Workload Automation's setup cost is determined by the customer's contract and can differ based on the number of agents installed. Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition has a pricing model that is based on the number of job executions. Users appreciate Redwood's pricing as it is cost-effective and beneficial for trying out new platforms. Furthermore, Redwood's setup cost and pricing are notably lower compared to competitors such as Control-M and UC4.
ROI: It is difficult to assess the ROI of IBM Workload Automation. However, Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition has demonstrated positive outcomes with a 10% return on investment.
Comparison Results: IBM Workload Automation is the preferred product compared to Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition. Users appreciate IBM's ability to incorporate requested features based on client voting, as well as its capability to trigger jobs in multiple nodes and pre-schedule them.
"The support from Cisco is very good. I was with them as a company for 40 years"
"This solution has a request feature where users can request the added features they need to have developed. Based on client voting for those features, these are developed and released."
"The most important feature is the creation of folders. It's a really great feature because you can organize the process with naming conventions."
"The project we worked on involved the running of nearly 24,000 job instances in a single day, so I would say that the solution is stable."
"The technical support is great, the product is easy-to-use, and it is stable."
"The DWC, when configured correctly, is a great GUI tool to provide Self-Service Scheduling capabilities to the user community."
"Provides a robust, full spectrum enterprise-wide WLA platform."
"Technical support from IBM is very good."
"This tool helps us to monitor the job related to SAP modules."
"There are various ways in which you can construct jobs depending on your business needs and requirements."
"Installing and configuring Redwood agents are easy, and scheduling jobs on Redwood helps in triggering the batches as per business requirements."
"Redwood RunMyJobs has been very useful for job scheduling and checking and monitoring jobs."
"It has advanced features like dashboards where users can see all statistics."
"The automated alert response is very useful for long-running and failed jobs during off-business hours."
"We can achieve anything that anything that we would like to do. In SAP, it's not generally possible with just with SAP. So we have solution manager as an option, but run by job."
"One of Redwood Software's features that I liked was its event-driven automation, which allows IT teams to respond to real-time events, alerts, and notifications from numerous systems."
"It should support other schedulers that aren't IBM products."
"The configuration of IBM Workload Automation has some challenges. We have a difficult time customizing it, but it is similar to other solutions."
"Slow down on the releases a bit. I fully understand that IWA functionality is increasing at an amazing rate, but trying to keep up with the upgrades is rough."
"It would be helpful to have a mobile app that could be used to follow the job schedule."
"The performance of the previous versions could be better."
"There should be more custom documentation, specifically around Java APIs. There should also be more training. In terms of features, we are currently using only 50% of its features. We don't use all features that are available, but there is always room for improvement in all of the tools."
"This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly."
"Scalability-wise, it can be a little bit challenging."
"The product can improve customer service."
"The only issue at first was that we had to manually delete or raise the event in order to run some of the events and wait for jobs, even if the file was kept at the correct AL11 position."
"The price wise, it is not affordable. When we compare with other industry leading softwares and even the same scale, there are certain softwares that can compete with Redwood, but Redwood is very highly paced.So it is more SAP friendly, I would say, at this point. Since it was owned by SAP for very long time, they have made it SAP friendly. But if you look at the tool as a enterprise tool. Like, in general, it is not really that great as a tool. So you can you have better options when you couple it with SAP. But if you would like to control your enterprise level applications, anything after that, like, Azure AWS and things like that Oracle."
"The job log has a size limit."
"It has limited reporting features; some basic reporting features are missing."
"We need the ability to pull data into an Excel format."
"Due to the abundance of competing automation technologies available on the market, connectivity with any cloud platform can be improved."
"Currently, our developers aren't able to access their own objects in the user acceptance testing server and production system server as they are assigned the developer access role, which is kind of a solid role, and no changes or additions can be made to it."
IBM Workload Automation is ranked 13th in Workload Automation with 28 reviews while Redwood RunMyJobs is ranked 3rd in Workload Automation with 30 reviews. IBM Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Redwood RunMyJobs is rated 9.6. The top reviewer of IBM Workload Automation writes "With an easy setup phase in place, agent-based installation can be done in minutes". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Redwood RunMyJobs writes "Simple to use, increases CPU speed, and reduces the cost of machine time". IBM Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, HCL Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Tidal by Redwood, whereas Redwood RunMyJobs is most compared with Control-M, Stonebranch, Tidal by Redwood, AutoSys Workload Automation and Automic Automation Intelligence. See our IBM Workload Automation vs. Redwood RunMyJobs 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.