We performed a comparison between Jitterbit Harmony 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 runs like an appliance and has tremendous throughput."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It is very easy to build integrations and processes to pull and push data."
"Jitterbit handles the most lines of data in a .csv and loads the quickest of any data loader I have tried."
"Integrity, ease of use, user-friendly user interface, and errorless logs are the most valuable features."
"Easy integration with Salesforce"
"We only use small parts of the solution, however, the parts that we use are quite adequate."
"Jitterbit provides the ability to quickly map data between files and databases."
"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."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"Its API management capabilities need improvement."
"I would like the ability to offer a dedicated cloud version for security."
"The initial setup can be a little bit difficult."
"In the past few months, there have been some server downtimes during work hours that have affected some critical scheduled integrations."
"You need to have some development skills or hire a Jitterbit engineer to make changes."
"Sometimes additional connectors are needed."
"Looping through complex data structures can be difficult."
"There were some bugs in the product. For example if you run a delete query and test, it deletes the actual data."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
Jitterbit Harmony is ranked 21st in Workload Automation with 13 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. Jitterbit Harmony is rated 8.6, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Jitterbit Harmony writes "An easy-to-setup solution with good stability ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". Jitterbit Harmony is most compared with MuleSoft Composer, Azure Data Factory, Microsoft Azure Logic Apps, Mule Anypoint Platform and SnapLogic, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and IBM Workload Automation. See our Jitterbit Harmony 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.
