What advice do you have for others considering Automic Workload Automation?

My name and company name will not be mentioned. The overall rating for Automic Automation is 8 out of 10.

Overall, I would rate Automic Automation as an eight. I would recommend it because it is stable, scalable, and supported by one of the major companies in IT services. However, having two schedulers can be beneficial to ensure license negotiations are feasible. I rate the overall solution as an eight.

Overall, I would rate Automic Automation an eight out of ten.

I would rate the overall solution as an eight out of ten. Despite some room for improvement, it has been a reliable and valuable tool in managing IT process automations effectively.

I would rate Automic Automation as eight out of ten. I would advise staying current with updates and possibly considering improvements to documentation.

I could recommend Automic Automation, but it is a bit challenging if you want to implement it in a very big environment. If it is a small environment, it can easily handle that. I would rate Automic Automation a nine out of ten.

We did face some challenges during the early implementation about 17 years ago. There were occasions when jobs replicated themselves and filled up the database, causing system downtime. However, we've since fixed these issues. I would recommend Automic Automation to other users mainly because of its ability to work in multiple platform environments. For example, it's effortless to move files from a Windows system to a Linux system. Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I think it's a very good product.

It is an easy-to-use tool. You do not have to spend too much time learning the interface and other things. It is a stable tool. It is reliable. We have not used the predictive modeling provided by the AAI capability. We tried it for a while, but we did not have any advanced use cases where we had to dig deep into the system. We have some basic reports, and people seem to be happy with that. We predominantly use it for on-prem jobs. We never tested it on the cloud. It seems complicated. It needs a lot of setup such as opening the network and the network's firewalls and other things. It seems difficult. We may also need a different type of licensing to run from the agents in the cloud, so we did not try it. In the future, we may use Automic Automation with the cloud. I would rate Automic Automation a nine out of ten.

We're a customer and end-user. This is a powerful tool. It has a good interface and it is easy to manage. Even a non-technical person can work with it. Within a week or two people can learn enough about it to begin working with it. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it. The use cases of Automic Workload Automation were that we were supporting around 140 odd hospitals. We had a little bit of peak resource demand when we were doing it manually. We had approximately a person handling two setup boxes, because of which we had a peak in resource demand that went up to 70 people, especially during the month's end. By introducing Automic Workload Automation, we were able to do all of the work for 140 hospitals using two people for primarily monitoring the tool and were not doing any work manually. I think we got a kind of huge gain, though we had to pay the two people monitoring the tool for their overtime. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

My recommendation to existing users is to consider onboarding more use cases on Automic Workload Automation. The platform has a lot of potential, and it is not necessary to limit its use to just one team. You can expand and expose the tool to other departments, such as IT or business vendors, to unlock its full potential. Since you have already invested in the product, you can brainstorm within your organization to identify areas for automation improvements and onboard more use cases accordingly. I rate Automic Workload Automation a ten out of ten.

I would give Workload Automation a rating of eight out of ten.

We are partners. I'd invite anyone to try the solution as it is user-friendly and has an easy user interface. It's functional and scalable. Overall, the product is quite good. I'd rate the product nine out of ten. I'm very happy with it in general.

It is important to understand workload automation and how the solution functions. Work with your customer to determine the infrastructure and number of agents or servers. Create an infrastructure table and then starting installing to those specifications. I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I would tell potential customers that they must use third-party software like Control-M, Stonebranch, AutoSys, or Tidal to migrate to Automic Workload Automation. If we compare it to any market-leading software, like Control-M BMC, Automic has the same capability, but Automic provides everything as a bundled product. Others like BMC sell their products in different modules. So, you have to buy the license, and on top of that, you have to buy the separate modules. I would also tell potential users that with competing products, they need a job-based license if they plan to scale up and avoid penalization. But as Automic is node-based, there will be no penalty if you are running 5,000 jobs today and 6,000 jobs tomorrow. It'll be the same. On a scale from one to ten, I would give Automic Workload Automation a seven.

I rate Automic Workload Automation eight out of 10.

Automic Workload Automation is a good, clear automation tool that's reasonably priced. I would rate it seven out of ten.

We only use it for workload automation. We haven't explored the tool as such. It claims to have a lot of features, but we have just touched the surface of it. From a workload automation point of view, there are multiple tools. You've got BMC. You've got Automic, and you've got Stonebranch. Stonebranch is the smaller of the lot, and from a solution perspective, their agent can work with any other automation tool. Cost-wise also, it is much cheaper than the others. If you are a small enterprise and don't have an existing tool, Stonebranch wouldn't be a bad option. I would rate Automic Workload Automation a seven out of ten.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Automic Workload Automation an eight. This is because of the language and stability issues.

I rate Automic Workload Automation a nine out of ten. I recommend this solution to others.

Overall, the user experience is extremely good. The monitoring and troubleshooting features are rich and with the dashboards and other features, automation work is made easier.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. If they added some additional features for monitoring, I would give it a higher rating. If you're in need of RPA capabilities, this may not be the solution for you. RPA can be applied for some processes, but not for everything.

This is absolutely a product that I recommend. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I would rate Automic Workload Automation a six out of ten.

This is a good product and I can recommend it. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I began using this product just after it was acquired by CA. We have four to five people who have been trained on CA Workload Automation across all of the developing nations. My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to carefully look at the environment. Some manual processes can be converted, but some are best left done using human manual input. If this is the case then you have to convert these into a scripted document image. I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

It's the same for any end tool we implement: Be clear with the requirements. Apart from that, everything is pretty smooth and straightforward. You can look at the tool and understand where things are going. There is no rocket science that you need to be worried about. But you do need to be aware of what you're doing. Regarding the number of staff for maintenance, it depends on how exactly you want to maintain it. We always keep all the UPROCS, all the jobs that we have in an environment, on a centralised server as a backup. The maintenance is up to the individual organization, how robust or how limited they want it to be on the day of a crisis. In our organization, we have a team of nine people handling the tool. We have more than 12,000 tasks that are scheduled to run each day, and more than 100,000 job iterations happen every day. It's actually a really big environment. We have more than 1,400 nodes connected to it, and we are bringing in 300 more. At each of those additional nodes we are expecting four to five jobs. So that will add about 1,500 tasks. The number of iterations expected is still unknown. Right now, we execute jobs in three regions: Europe, Asia-Pacific, and America. We are only using AWA in the European region. We are taking it into Asia as well. That's the next expansion of the tool. The admin roles include handling new requests for creation of the tasks and sessions, as well as the changes to existing jobs, including notification, and daily scheduling. In addition, there is the daily maintenance part. We check for jobs that are failing every day, why they are failing, and we will try to mitigate the problem. It could be the agent needs to be purged, or the agent is not running, or the credentials that were given for a specific job are not there anymore. Those are the sorts of checks we do on a daily basis to keep it healthy. I rate Automic Workload Automation at eight out of ten. What comes to mind when I consider that rating is the distributed licensing, that every server has to be licensed individually. The second is the workflow of jobs connected on multiple servers.

You should know configuration and scripting in Shell because Automic only gives binary, which you can adapt for your environment. You can the Automic with PostgreSQL, but it's not good. I prefer to use it with Oracle Database and to use clusters to create a solid environment. I have installed many packages, such as for WebSphere, for chat bots, for SSH, and for using programs like Excel, and Word. I'm trying to learn many things about development with ONE Automation. It's a good tool, really strong. It needs some new features, it needs to evolve, but it's really good. I really like it. And now, with Broadcom in the picture, it's a strong company.

Anything that can be automated, should be automated. The world is changing and new things are coming out a daily basis. These things take away your day-to-day spend, give you ample time to look forward, and streamline your workflow.

I would advise anyone purchasing this product to do the architecture work ahead of implementation. While it is easy to move objects between non-prod and prod or other environments, if you put the work up-front into designing how to move things or manage outages, etc., it makes your world a lot easier.

I would rate it as a nine out of 10, not the best one. It gets a minus one because of the new web interface, because it is not so easy to handle nor is it intuitive to use like the old one. As for the rest, you can do everything you want. It is scalable, flexible, and it does what you want it to do.

I will give it an eight out of 10, because no product is as good as a 10. There is room for improvement for Automic, but I am pleased to use it.

I would like to rate it as an eight out of 10, because there is room for improvement, and I would like to see this from Automic. They should continue to work on the product to improve the product. If my peers are looking for a real end-to-end solution, not only some siloed solution, they should go for Automic because it is an easy product to use. It is easy to install. I can recommend this product to other customers. Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: The partnership between a vendor and customer is very important. You should have a good account manager in place who is dealing with the customer. This is something very important for us. Customer service and support are also important.

Because of its stability and versatility, I give it a nine out of 10. I never give tens. Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: Support is very important. Also, if we are looking for a solution, we might go to Automic, and say, "We want to do this. Can you help?" They are always very good. They will come over, sit down, and talk with us, helping us where they can.

I would encourage people to use the solution.

I prefer this product.

Use the product. Support is good and it works fine.

It is a good product for solution automation.

The version before was overloaded because if opened various windows, it was not easy to understand if you were new to the product. The newest version is easier to understand. However, right now, the performance is not as good as it used to be and some features are gone. There are still improvements needed. It is decent, and there are good ideas, but there are still improvements needed.

Test it for a long time. You have to look if it fits into the mindset of your company. Main criteria when selecting a vendor: We look to other companies about the following: * What do they use? * How is their experience? * Does the support work? * How quick is the support? * How good is the documentation? * How good is the vendor concerning new technologies and time to market new solutions in the software?

I would recommend to definitely try the product.

Have a look at following: * Technical functionality * Attitude of the vendor * The way that they are in contact with their customers. * Flexibility of the solution. Most important criteria when selecting vendors: Our company wants to have strong partners. Therefore, they change the direction from selecting specific small companies for a specific question or task to have more global partners for big areas, where they can rely on the necessary knowledge in the company in terms of enough people with this knowledge, not only one specialist, and no one else can take over in the case of any problem, holiday, or leaving the company.

I recommend to try the product. Our competitors mostly use this product too. Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: Getting things done better.

You can't go wrong with Automic, because it is supporting every common system. Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: * Stability. * Support.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: The tool is more important than the vendor. * Look how comfortable the tool is. * How it has performed. * The vendor name or costs are just a second point of the evaluation.

You should have a look at Automic, but also at their competition. There are a few things which they need to change. I would not have said this a few years ago, but now they need to improve.

Use Automic or CA Workload Automation, as it is the best tool.

I have offered other companies to come view the solution at our company and see how it works. Most companies have been happy to do. Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: * Functionality * Solution needs to be economic.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: * The brand. * Ease of use.

I would recommend Automic. Most important criteria for our customers when selecting a vendor: * Flexibility * A supportive platform * The licensing costs.

I would recommend using Automic.

I would recommend Workload Automation.

I love it, and I am happy working with it. Though, it was hard to comprehend at the beginning. Do not be scared with the user interface. It is not that hard. If you like to script, this is the tool for you.

I must have a tool which works. I have a new version, but I have problems. That is not good. However, if we have no problems with the quality, we will probably use the product a long time. I like this product. I know what it can do.

I would recommend Automic, because it is easy to set up and use. The whole system is complete. I have not had any issues with usage. It is completely sufficient. We are still on version 10. We are upgrading to version 12, because we have to do it. However, we do not believe there is any missing functionality at the moment. Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: * Support * Price * Functionality. I do not care about the name of the vendor.

It has an easy to handle GUI. Because of the script engine, you can do nearly everything you want. I prefer it to other solutions. Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: It has to handle our batches, because we use many objects. It is good how we can migrate from the new tool and how much work is accepted for the migration. At the moment, we have not found anything better than the CA solution.

Look at it and test it, because it is a very good product.

The product is okay.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: * Product features (i.e., flexibility). * It must fit the requirements. * A partner that you can rely on.

Automation is very powerful. This solution is flexible in terms of platform integration. They need better CA support , because in terms of issues and problem solving, the support is not good. It would be much better if CA had some dedicated support to customers.

Definitely go for Automic. Most important criteria when our customers are selecting a vendor: One of the outside most important features versus competitors, we are able to orchestrate control.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: multi-platform usability.

It is a nice product. We have been looking for this type of product for many years.

I would definitely recommend the product.

It is hands-down the best product out there. You might find others that are cheaper, you might find others that sound better and cost more, but in the end, the best automation product on the market is Automic. Save yourself some time and start with the best first. It is easy to install, easy to maintain, reliable, stable, user-friendly, and versatile. One can achieve great automation with Automic.

Read the documentation.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: * Support * It is a fast solution. * The product minimizes downtime. * Good reputation.

I would recommend Automic with some restrictions.

We are looking for use cases to utilize it within our organization. Basically, what we are looking to do now is to automate as much as we can within the organization. We are probably not using it as much as we can, but that is on us. Any issues we have ever had with the product have been resolved. We are only using Automic more, rather than less, in the organization. It is as integrated in our company as it possibly can be. It is crucial to us. We would not put that this type of time and investment into a product if we were not sure of its capabilities and stability. Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: The product has to fit. The vendor has to be willing to work with us and tailor their product to suit our needs, then offer that level of support to us. The company that we work in, we can't have downtime or outages. Automic and similar products are critical to our business and our internal business functions. Thus, support is key, if there is an issue, so we can get it fixed quickly. Do your own proof of concept. Make sure you know what you want. Be clear about what you want the product to do for you. Go out and meet with the vendor, then test it.

When our company is investing in a new vendor, our top criteria are * support * features * stability is probably the biggest. I don't have a whole lot of experience with other automation systems, other than CA-7, which we're on a very old version of, but I really like the Automic Workload Automation due to its ease of use.