We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Fortra's JAMS based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Automic Workload Automation is highly appreciated for its strong performance, flexibility, and straightforward setup process. Fortra's JAMS receives accolades for its exceptional job tracking abilities and efficient automation functionalities.
For Automic Workload Automation, suggested enhancements include the adoption of industry standards and seamless automation processes, better language support, a more intuitive interface, enhanced web-based functionalities, and improved file transfer management. Fortra's JAMS could benefit from improvements in terms of user-friendliness, search functionality, available training resources, handling of exceptions, reporting and dashboard capabilities, source control features, documentation quality, access permissions management, resolution of connectivity issues, and notification system.
Service and Support: Automic Workload Automation's customer service has been met with varying feedback, with some expressing concerns regarding response times and challenges in contacting the support team. Fortra's JAMS customer service is commended for its responsiveness, expertise, and assistance.
Ease of Deployment: Users have found that the setup process for Automic Workload Automation can take anywhere from one to five days depending on the implementation and project size. Fortra's JAMS is known for its straightforward and easy setup, with users finding it quick and simple.
Pricing: Automic Workload Automation has a high setup cost compared to Fortra's JAMS. Users view JAMS as fair, affordable, and a worthwhile investment.
ROI: Automic Workload Automation does not offer concrete ROI figures, however, the absence of license renewal implies it is perceived as an added cost. Fortra's JAMS has demonstrated substantial ROI by saving time, enhancing productivity, and proving to be cost-effective.
Comparison Results: Fortra's JAMS is highly recommended over Automic Workload Automation. JAMS is praised for its simple setup, capability to handle job dependencies, and comprehensive monitoring and control features. Users find JAMS easy to use, with centralized management and helpful customer support. JAMS stands out with its intuitive interface, superior job dependency tracking, and more affordable pricing options.
"Automic is perfect to work with for a lot of job loads."
"It's allowing us to increase our overall volumes of data that we're working with, without actually increasing the overall amount of team that we need to monitor it."
"Support is good and it works fine."
"It is the automation. Saving time and money is the key. We automate everything."
"As far as our schedules, if we have problems, we can create our own process in the automation, which is good."
"The solution is integrated across all applications and platforms in our company. We can provide everything from the very first data source to the data target in one immense code."
"The most important and critical process business in the bank, including COB, closed or business, which has to run on a daily basis, is automated."
"We automate very manual, robust tasks, which are very time consuming and not error-free."
"We looked at other companies, like VisualCron, that were cheaper, but one of the main sticking points was the fact that they wouldn't have provided a central location for us to monitor across all servers. That was one of the biggest selling points of JAMS."
"Fortra's JAMS helped us centralize job management across our platforms and applications. This is critical because we schedule tasks across multiple applications and operating systems, using triggers and start dates to coordinate their execution."
"The alerting in it is really targeted... you can set specific alerting so that if jobs in a given folder fail, certain people are alerted. You can also set security at the folder level, so that only people in those areas can go set them. That means that the alerting and security can be set at a very granular level."
"The fact that we no longer need to use Excel spreadsheets is huge. Before JAMS, every group was keeping track of their own batch jobs. Nobody really knew what the other jobs were. So, if jobs failed, other groups wouldn't necessarily know. With JAMS, everything is done through a single scheduler. You can choose who to notify."
"The ability to sequence jobs is excellent; it means we don't have to schedule them individually, and if one fails, it doesn't unwind the entire workflow."
"JAMS has improved my organization by taking a myriad of manual processes and allowing us to automate them. It enables our folks to focus more on tasks that require their human intelligence and their creativity and less on just mundane tasks. It increases efficiency, accuracy, and consistency."
"I like how you can add new execution methods on the fly. It isn't overly complex to add Python script support to an execution method in the JAMS system. The scheduling is excellent. You can schedule a maintenance window and take that resource unit out of everything. It halts all of the jobs."
"Being able to create a series of chained jobs, which are basically linked jobs is valuable."
"There are some problems when using the new interface."
"I would like to see more stability in the product and have the transition between versions be more seamless."
"There could be a better user interface for end users. They should make it more intuitive, not based on Java."
"Most of our issues are related to the system, not the job scheduling, such as, bugs and unexpected downtime of the application or database."
"The user interface has room for improvement."
"The search is sometimes a little bit slow."
"We would like to have some features with the AWI with the founding technique, which cannot currently be delivered."
"We would like some advantages, which we had with the Java UI, with the automation engine."
"It is important to receive notifications if a charged job fails and SQL is halted. JAMS does not provide halted notifications by default, which is a critical feature that needs to be added."
"The tabs in the JAMS file transfer could be clearer. It would help us demonstrate to our client that JAMS not only automates jobs but also does fast transfers, and it's an alternative that supports and filters different kinds of platforms. Filtering file transfers will be highly beneficial to them."
"There could be a better simulation for banning the termination. You have to simulate every one of the processes in order to have an idea for better planning. This kind of simulation is broken and needs improvement."
"The UI could be better. There were some things that were not quite intuitive, such as the search tool. When we tried to search for jobs, we had to clear the entire search and then go in and enter the new search query. That's something that wasn't intuitive for a new user."
"As an admin, I would like to have a web-based GUI instead of a client application that we have to install on our PCs."
"The product does not allow the users to cut and paste the job names from the screen."
"With no programming experience, I find JAMS code-driven automation challenging due to the required PowerShell scripting."
"JAMS lacks source control features. Our previous solution had job control language, but JAMS doesn't. When migrating between versions, JAMS doesn't migrate all the data, like job change history, etc. Also, the scheduler doesn't have a way to make jobs invisible, so you can temporarily turn a job off if you decide not to run it today."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Fortra's JAMS is ranked 5th in Workload Automation with 27 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Fortra's JAMS is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Automic Workload Automation writes "A tool requiring an easy setup phase that provides its users with flexibility and flow chart visibility ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortra's JAMS writes "We can scale up our organization's scheduling and automation without having to add staff to the department". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and AppWorx Workload Automation, whereas Fortra's JAMS is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs, Tidal by Redwood and VisualCron. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Fortra's JAMS 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.
