We performed a comparison between Mule Anypoint Platform 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."The monitoring capabilities of this product are very good because of the feedback it supplies in statistics."
"Overall, it is a pretty good product. It is also very scalable."
"The most valuable features of the Mule Anypoint Platform are the Flex Gateway, API management, easy-to-use, and connectors. Additionally, they are coming out with improvements to the solution when required."
"The tool is very capable and offers a high performance. The tool supports batch processing and ETL processing."
"The product’s ability to seamlessly translate protocols is great."
"Mule Anypoint Platform's valuable features are its flexibility in terms of deployment and its SaaS capabilities."
"It is a stable product...The initial setup was simple."
"The integration potential is excellent."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"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."
"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."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"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 support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"Better documentation, in particular with respect to the initial setup, would be helpful."
"We would like an entire DevOps in place in this particular solution."
"It would be better if we had a clearer view of the solution's future releases."
"The solution's pricing model is very strange, and it will be really expensive if you use APIs a lot."
"Code quality, Code Security, SaaS, and DaaS security, can all be improved."
"Its documentation needed a little bit of work to make it more usable. It is a platform that is used mainly by developers and other people for connecting systems. Its documentation was confusing in some areas and was not very helpful in other areas. I had to go to a consultant to get some work done, which ideally shouldn't be required."
"The pricing can be a little bit less."
"Pricing is one aspect of the solution that is troublesome. It's too expensive for smaller organizations."
"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 would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"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."
"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."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
Mule Anypoint Platform is ranked 8th in Workload Automation with 41 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. Mule Anypoint Platform is rated 8.2, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Mule Anypoint Platform writes "Robust, reliable, and stable, ensuring high availability for critical integrations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". Mule Anypoint Platform is most compared with MuleSoft Composer, Microsoft Azure Logic Apps, Oracle Integration Cloud Service, SAP Process Orchestration and SAP Cloud Platform, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and IBM Workload Automation. See our Mule Anypoint Platform 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.
