We performed a comparison between Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition and Stonebranch Universal Automation Center based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition stands out for its robust job definition capabilities, intuitive interface, live event monitoring, and seamless integration with different systems. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is praised for its exceptional performance, visually appealing graphical representation, and efficient task monitoring.
Redwood has the potential for improvement in reporting capabilities, monitoring and alert services, user interface, outage identification, and other aspects. Stonebranch has room for enhancement in cloud availability, analytics, task monitoring, and collaboration with the vendor.
Service and Support: The customer service for Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition has received generally positive feedback, although there is some room for improvement. Customers express satisfaction with the support they have received. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center's customer service is highly praised, particularly for its excellent technical support and knowledgeable team. Users rate their support as nine out of ten.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition was difficult and took a lot of time, whereas Stonebranch Universal Automation Center had a relatively easy setup. Redwood Software necessitated training multiple teams and managing a decentralized structure, whereas Stonebranch had a more user-friendly graphical user interface (GUI) for setup.
Pricing: Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition has a higher initial cost, however, users find it worth the investment, and the license renewal process is straightforward. In contrast, Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is more affordable compared to its competitors and necessitates an annual license fee.
ROI: Users of Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition have experienced significant time savings and improved job scheduling, resulting in ROI. One user gave it a perfect rating. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center has led to cost savings.
Comparison Results: Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition is the preferred choice over Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. Redwood Software offers a comprehensive solution with strong job definition and building capabilities, a user-friendly interface, real-time event monitoring, and cloud automation. It also includes features such as load balancing, memory management, and mobile notifications.
"This program works with every browser."
"It's a very powerful tool. It has a lot of flexibility for how you can define jobs and build them. There are different ways in which you can construct jobs depending on your specific needs and requirements."
"It can centralize and support on-premises, hybrid, and cloud environments seamlessly."
"Its monitoring and alerting features are what I found the most valuable."
"We can create and test micro-workflows to find defects sooner."
"With automation in place, employees can focus on more strategic tasks that require human expertise, increasing overall productivity."
"Multi-platform scheduling makes it easier this way rather than accessing one platform at a time."
"Redwood RunMyJobs has been very useful for job scheduling and checking and monitoring jobs."
"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."
"When it comes to agent technology and compatibility with other vendors, from a platform perspective it was the one vendor that fit all the platforms that we have, from your old platforms - mainframe, NSK, IBM i - to the new ones, going into cloud and container"
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"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."
"We lean a lot on the multi-tenancy that they offer within the product, the ability to get other people to self-manage their estate, versus having a central team do all the scheduling."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
"Enhancing the user interface would make it more appealing and accessible to a wide range of users."
"Redwood Software has a high price tag, especially for small and medium-sized businesses that might not have the funds to engage in a complete automation system."
"Due to the abundance of competing automation technologies available on the market, connectivity with any cloud platform can be improved."
"It has limited reporting features; some basic reporting features are missing."
"I have not noted any downsides."
"Having a graphical user interface for the dashboard would be great."
"The user interface of Redwood can be improved a bit to make it more user-friendly and interesting."
"They should be made more cost-effective in comparison to similar software services."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"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 can't handle negative written codes."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
Redwood RunMyJobs is ranked 3rd in Workload Automation with 30 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. Redwood RunMyJobs is rated 9.6, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Redwood RunMyJobs writes "Simple to use, increases CPU speed, and reduces the cost of machine time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". Redwood RunMyJobs is most compared with Control-M, Tidal by Redwood, AutoSys Workload Automation, Automic Workload Automation and Automic Automation Intelligence, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, IBM Workload Automation and VisualCron. See our Redwood RunMyJobs 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.
