We performed a comparison between Nintex Process 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."I think the initial setup is fine."
"Our solutions using Nintex has been most successful in automating HR processes because it allows you to easily and rapidly build solutions that conform to the unique business processes for each entity."
"The solution has helped us to automate our business processes, our approval systems, and automation for quickly developing on SharePoint on-prem and SharePoint online."
"NWC forms could be better. Also, the ability to build workflows that are not dependent on SharePoint is very desirable. The forms feature just isn’t as functional as the forms for SharePoint."
"I like the feature of getting an email for a workflow error, then I do not have to go through every instance."
"It's easy to learn. However, there is very little content available for the Nintex also, but they are providing their own documentation and all. So, it's easy to learn also."
"The technical support is very good."
"This solution is very easy to use and customize, using almost zero coding. It's built on SharePoint which many companies in our country have experience with. This made it easy to adapt the application in our environment."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"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 most valuable feature is the reliability of the agents, because we need them accessible and we need to run stuff. The agent technology and compatibility are top-notch."
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
"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."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"I like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"Built-in reporting on-prem is limited and clunky at best."
"Unfortunately, Nintex Workflow is not that stable. We are looking at shifting to another tool."
"Difficult to include external partners with the solution deployed on-premise."
"While Nintex Workflow has pretty robust troubleshooting abilities, I think that improving the default logging and notifications would be helpful."
"The solution is a bit too expensive. It could be cheaper."
"The solution needs more RPA and AI features."
"At times, issues arise in certain scenarios. In such cases, the versioning can become quite difficult. There may be no other way but to restart the entire process or rectify it at that point."
"The tool lacks to offer support for the Arabic language, and it needs consideration."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"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."
"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 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's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"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."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"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."
Nintex Process Platform is ranked 10th in Workload Automation with 21 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. Nintex Process Platform is rated 8.0, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Nintex Process Platform writes "Offers good integration capabilities and easy to learn and 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". Nintex Process Platform is most compared with Camunda, IBM BPM, Appian, Pega BPM and Bizagi, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and IBM Workload Automation. See our Nintex Process 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.
