Automic Automation Reviews

It is an automation tool. We build the workflows and Linux and Windows servers with it, particularly for running client jobs and databases. We use it with a lot of big data ecosystem tools, such as Hadoop or HDFS.

We have automated regular ETL processes such as data transformation. They are loading data into databases and the HDFS file system.

We use it for data transfer jobs between servers. It is being used for SFTP-type jobs, and we run a lot of Python-based things with Automic.

It deals with business-critical processes. It is an important tool for us. For a lot of backend work, we use Automic Automation to run all kinds of jobs. We have some very complex jobs, but we also use it for some basic jobs. It is being used for very critical or high-priority jobs and complicated workflows with hundreds of jobs.

It has been easy for us to manage complex workloads using Automic Automation. The user interface allows us to zoom into a particular section of a complicated workflow. If we have 30 different jobs and scripts tied together in a workflow, we can use the graphical interface to work on one section of the job on our screen. We can also embed one workflow into another. If there is a complicated workflow, we can bunch it all into one workflow and embed that one into a different workflow. This way, we can manage more complicated workflows.

It is easy to use. We previously had a thick client which was Java-based, and now, we have the web-based one. Both have been easy to use. Building jobs and doing the admin side of things, such as monitoring jobs, checking reports of the jobs, and checking job statistics has been easy. It is one of the easy-to-use tools.

We could see its benefits immediately after deploying it. We were replacing a legacy tool with Automic. It was a new solution, and we could see all the new features in it.

We have a lot of alerting features and notification features. It even has a feature to notify us when a job takes longer than usual. If our workflow usually takes two hours to run, but it is taking longer, Automic Automation can notify us. It helps to reduce the error or failure rates.

Automic Automation has freed up staff to do other things more. By automating routine things with Automic, they can move on to doing other things. It surely frees up people's time. It is saving time for our staff.

Automic Automation helped reduce our operational costs. We used to get called often with our old tool because of more failure rates, agents going down, etc. In that sense, it is saving time for staff. If more tickets are generated, we would have to hire more people offshore. With fewer tickers and fewer job failures, we need fewer people.

Automic Automation has helped improve our ability to meet SLAs by being more reliable and more stable. It is a stable tool. Our jobs are not failing because technology is failing or agents are going down or not responding.

Since we bought it, we have not had any big issues. We are satisfied with it. We are able to run multiple jobs. We can build and run complicated jobs. There are no issues. The user interface and other things are easy to use, and people are generally happy with the tool.

We use Automic for both legacy and modern systems. We have automated Linux workflows, shell scripts, database jobs, and big data jobs such as HDFS jobs and Spark jobs.

Integration with the cloud is an area for improvement. They have to make it somehow fit or usable for cloud use cases. Right now, it works great for our on-prem data center, but they have to come up with a very good reason why people should be using it in the cloud. 

We got the tool in 2015, so it has been nine years.

It is stable. We have not had any issues related to stability.

It is scalable. We only have a two-server cluster. We never had a need for more than that. We have the licenses to add more servers in case we need more throughput from Automic.

I have interacted with them a lot of times. They can be better, but overall, they are okay. If we have a severe or high-priority issue where we need help immediately, we get very experienced engineers, but if it is a routine issue, there are a lot of emails back and forth. So, for low-priority issues, there can be some improvement.

Neutral

We used to use a tool called Redwood Cronacle previously. We got separated from our parent company, and our managers had more autonomy to select the tech stack and switch to a different technology.

So, we had an old tool before, and we wanted to replace it. Back in 2015 or 2016, when Atomic was selected as a vendor, we were looking at all the features, the integrations with HDFS, and the agent architecture they have. We were also looking for the stability of the tool. With the previous tool, we had a lot of stability issues, such as agents going off, so we were looking for a more stable tool. We also wanted to have a more modern tool.

Given the number of jobs we had, it took us a long time to move to it, but we expected that. We were able to do it within the allotted time. In that sense, we did not have any unforeseen issues when we moved to Automic Automation.

Given that we had hundreds or thousands of jobs, it took us about six months to complete the move. We totally deprecated our old tool and moved 100% of our jobs to Automic Automation.

It does not require anything big in terms of maintenance. It just requires upgrades. Other than that, there is nothing. The platform is stable.

They have increased the license price a little bit. It is more than what we expected about two years ago. So, there could be some surprises when it comes to pricing.

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 have many different use cases. One use case is to back up all our servers. This is a big usage. The next one is to schedule things on SAP systems. We have SAP reports. We have processes where different SAP systems are involved and we can build up dependencies. We create business process flows. This is a big use case.

We use Automic Automation for managing databases, such as SQL databases, Oracle databases, and SAP databases. We have customers who use UC4 for general monitoring, system jobs, and other things. These are the main use cases.

We have some business-critical processes. For example, if a file is there, then the file has to be loaded to SAP. The customers can then, for example, print the papers to transport the goods. If our UC4 process does not happen, the papers cannot be printed and the goods cannot be shipped to a customer.

Some departments use it to handle the databases. If the process is stuck, then perhaps for Oracle databases, the archive files will not be moved to another folder, and the folder will grow and grow. There would be no space on the file system, and the application that is using the database cannot work anymore. We have some very critical processes and also many processes that are not so critical.

The biggest benefit is that we have one point of view on the processes. We can build dependencies, and we can have access to different platforms. We can integrate different platforms. This is the biggest benefit of Automic Automation.

Our systems are very big. At times, we have more than 11 million jobs per day or executions per day, and we have struggled with this amount in the past, but Broadcom has improved the application so that we can avoid such struggles. We have a big environment. When new functionality is implemented in the system, very often, we are the first ones to struggle with something, and then Broadcom has to improve it. Normally, it is a very stable product for us.

We have some very big workflows, which include more than a thousand objects, so it can be very hard for us to have a good overview of it all. That is why we build our processes in small steps. This way, it is much easier to handle them as one very big workflow. This is our experience, and we try to go in this direction.

We have the agent, or we can use the REST API. It is easy to implement in the end. The big challenge is that if you have many components in your systems, you have to update the components from time to time, and this, of course, is a big effort.

Automic Automation has saved time and helped free up staff for other projects or tasks. We automate many things with Automic Automation. If we had to do these things every day manually, we would lose a lot of time. It helps us save time for other projects.

Automic Automation has helped us reduce our operational costs. I am from the admin team, and we have to roll out the new version of our agent. We have more than 30,000 agents in our system. To update each agent manually, we would have to log onto the server, move the binaries to the target system, stop the agent, and start the agent. It would take a very long time to do this manually for 30,000 agents. With Automic Automation, we have the possibility to just say that we want to update this agent. The binaries will be moved to the platform, and the agent will be stopped and started automatically. We do not have to log in to the servers. It will be done in the background. Therefore, it is a big help for us in saving time.

It has so many possibilities, and many functions are important for us. We use it very often, so it is difficult to say which is the best one. In general, the complete functionality that Broadcom offers is very good. It is very flexible in terms of using the functionalities and build processes. The biggest benefit perhaps is that we have so many possibilities in UC4 or Automic Automation to reach the target. We can more or less build each requirement from our customers.

The visibility and control that Automic Automation provides are good, but it could be improved. In case we run into performance issues, it is sometimes hard to find out what is the real cause for it.

At the moment, the REST interface does not include everything. It was improved a little bit, but some functionality is still open. This is something that can be improved. There is nothing critical that is missing for that we cannot use Automic Automation.

I have been using this solution for more than 25 years.

I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.

It is easy to scale, but the database should support that scalability. We can scale processes, and it is easy, but in the end, the database must be able to handle that. We sometimes struggle a little bit there. 

In our experience, when we want to scale, we do, but we then see some negative side effects, and we have to go down again. We have to contact the support. In most cases, we need a patch.

Some errors are checked directly if you create an object, and for some errors, it is always best if Broadcom checks whether it fits or not, but, of course, not all of them can be done in this way. If we run into an error that we cannot solve immediately at our end, we have the possibility to create a support ticket. We have the possibility to specify the priority one, two, three, or four. If it is priority one, we normally get very fast support on the phone, and they help. If it is a normal error, a ticket is created, but it takes time to get a solution, which is okay.

I have good experience with technical support. We also have a TSE partner. If we have some problems, we can contact this colleague directly. That makes life very easy.

Positive

In the mainframe environment, we had our own solution, but it was a long time ago. It is not comparable with Automic Automation.

We are not using cloud environments at the moment. We work only with on-premises environments. We have databases. At the moment, we are focusing on on-prem because most of the automations are still on-prem. I guess it will change in the future, but I do not see the change to the cloud environment happening in the next two years.

I have not practiced the deployment process, but I know that we could support some of our customers. They really benefited because of this.

In terms of maintenance, maintaining the processes is easy, but before we roll out a new version, we have to test all the things. This is a big effort for us every time. We struggle every time a new functionality is implemented because in most cases, the product is tested in a smaller environment, and it works. However, we usually reach the limit and then we have to adapt the product. We have to get in touch with Broadcom for that. Before we can roll out a new version, we have to test it properly. This is a big challenge on our end. If you are a customer with a small environment, it is easier to install the application because you have not adapted many things. You can more or less use it as you installed it, but in a bigger environment, you have many adaptations.

We have our TSE as the contact person.

We do an evaluation from time to time. We check out the market from time to time to see if there is perhaps a better product, but at the moment, we are concentrating on this solution.

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.

During the closing of business processes, it does provide the interface you require to interact with, including various systems, operating systems, databases, customer services, and so forth. It is very, very good. I'm quite pleased with it. I stay in very close contact with bank operators since they have to close the business on a daily basis.

The USB port is okay. 

The product in general, is okay. I do appreciate it from an architecture point of view. 

The most important and critical process business in the bank, including COB, close of business, which has to run on a daily basis, is automated. This is the most critical and the most important business process in the bank. 

The electronic work order combinations have the ability to scale and handle large volumes of data. So far, it's fine, as of right now. We don't have huge amounts of data. The amount of backups involved is quite limited, and for the amount of data exchange, it's actually pretty low. 

It is easy to manage complex workloads using automatic workflow automation. I would rate it above average. It's far from perfect. However, it's above average.

It's good for managing processes that span multiple operating platforms. We have very good integrations between everything. We have multiple agents surrounding only Nutanix. I'm happy with that.

Automic Automation helped improve our compliance processes. For example, we have to prove that we do a backup or daily backup, and so forth. It is very easy to extract the backup report and the enterprise report. Whenever we have a compliance audit, I can simply send those outputs and everything is fine.

The only thing I'm actually not satisfied with is, during the COB, the use of processes makes time estimation for the flow completion harder. Most of the time, it is not accurate, and it's actually very frustrating for the operators since they have to run the COB. They have to connect many people each and every day to run the closed business for the core banking system for the production environment and also for the testing environment. Since they have to work in shifts, the first thing they are looking at is whenever they are going to complete the task. I'm not sure what data they use to make time estimates. However, most of the time it is not accurate. It's either way too long or way too short.

I've used the solution for a while. I've used it for more than three years - almost four, in fact. 

I consider the solution stable. 

We have 20 to 30 people using the solution right now. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

To some extent, I provide support myself. Whenever I need additional support, I can go to our business partner, a local company, and they can help. They've been very nice and helpful. 

I'm also familiar with Control M. I prefer Automic as it has multiple interfaces and capabilities to interact with various types of systems - even old, legacy databases. 

I handled the initial setup, including handling the requirements and infrastructure.

When we installed the solution two years ago, we installed the latest versions - whatever was available at that time. 

The implementation wasn't easy. However, I had local partners from a local company to assist with the setup. It would be difficult for inexperienced people to install it alone. They have to understand the concept. They have to understand the architecture and be able to manage the credentials required to authenticate. I had these problems, for example, when I set up the UC port.

I handled the implementation by myself.

I worked with local partners during implementation. They had a very good background.

I can't speak to the exact pricing. I don't manage that. 

While I did not evaluate other options, it's my understanding that my managers did. I don't have any details, however.

We are Broadcom customers. 

We are not actually using them as cloud capabilities. We are only running on-premises.

We have yet to use any AI functionality. However, we are interested in the possibilities. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

We use the solution to automate business processes, including those in SAP systems, mainframes, host systems, and so on. Most of our environments are automated, from Windows to Unix. 

It's a powerful product.

I'm very familiar with the interface. It's easy to use. It's very intuitive and useful.

Nearly all of our business processes are automated using this product. It's not really complex. It has drag-and-drop capabilities. You can take an SAP job and move it into the workflow.

The scalability is great.

There's good visibility across operating platforms. You can see system states and logs, et cetera. It's powerful. You can analyze log files and get a good view of them. I'm not as familiar with the data analysis part, however, as I don't really use it. 

The solution offers connectivity in any direction. We have an old mainframe and have connectivity with special systems, SAP, and data connectors. 

It's helped us reduce workload failure across multiple cloud environments by 90%.

With this solution, we've been able to free up staff for other projects or tasks. The automation makes it possible to save time on various tasks.

We've been able to reduce operational costs thanks to its virtual presence.  

The solution could be improved by offering better management. They need to make it more intuitive. It would be helpful if they could visually flag items. You do need to log into the system and have some technical knowledge.

It would be better if it was easier to view the automated processes.

I've been using the solution for nearly 15 years.

The stability is good. I'd rate it seven out of ten. 

The solution scales well. You can scale from the system nodes, and there is no limit to the workload. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

Technical support could be better. However, for the most part, it's okay. The speed of response is pretty fast.

Neutral

We did previously use a different solution. We switched to the brand leader in our region. The look and feel of the interface are very good in comparison.

We do help our customers implement the product. The implementation's level of difficulty depends on what has to be automated. The tool itself isn't rocket science; however, complex automation may exist. If there's a big ETL or data warehouse with thousands of jobs, it can get complex. 

There is a bit of maintenance needed, for example, around security updates. 

There are different licensing models, so the solution is very flexible and can align with customer needs. The pricing itself is cheaper than BMC and other options. 

We're a consulting company and run a lot of POCs with customers looking for other solutions. 

We're a Broadcom partner. 

The solution has helped us with our ability to meet our SLAs.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I have been dealing with Automic Automation for probably around ten years. I have been both a partner with Automic, with Broadcom and with Autosys.

Automic Automation is a good tool that offers many advantages.

The greatest advantages of Automic Automation over its competitors include scripting capabilities.

The best features of Automic Automation are that we are able to support many endpoints.

Automic Automation's integration with cloud platforms for enhancing operational efficiency is positive, as it has many supported endpoints for cloud applications out of the box.

Intelligent monitoring with Automic Automation has helped in proactive decision making by providing an AI component.

Automic Automation's detailed logging and reporting has assisted with compliance by supporting major authentication systems and security systems.

Automic Automation has some disadvantages; it is more simplified, and sometimes it can be complicated.

The technical support by Automic, provided by Broadcom, is good with the same blocking support.

I have been working at my current company for thirty years.

Automic Automation does not have any major bugs after upgrading; these are pretty common for most software.

I would rate their technical support as an eight. The only thing I would improve is the upgrade process, which could be simplified.

Positive

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

We use the solution across every business area for site switches, backups, batch scheduling, and other tasks.

We implemented the solution about 20 years ago when we switched from our legacy mainframe systems. We were looking for a scheduler to replace the one in our new SAP systems, as the SAP system scheduler wasn't considered robust enough. The solution was chosen to replace SAP scheduling at that time.

What I like most about Automic Automation is its flexibility to work across multiple platforms, such as Windows, Linux, and SAP environments. The ease of switching from one environment to another is particularly useful. I like its calendars and workflows. 

The support has declined somewhat over the years due to various takeovers. It's not as personal as it used to be.

I've been using Automic Automation since 2005 for about 19 years.

I rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten. 

I wouldn't rate the solution's scalability highly, but that's more due to our company's structure than its capabilities. We often don't know what's coming for our company in advance, so we might not always consider using it for new projects even though we probably could.

We initially bought it for SAP scheduling but soon found it could do many other things. For example, we use it for site switches between our two data centers, testing our critical systems once or twice a year. In the first two years of using it, our usage grew by about 400%.

Currently, we have about 400 agents and three environments: development, test, and production. We have approximately 150 users.

As for scalability, we currently only use about 20% of the CPU capacity, so there's plenty of room for growth. If we need to add more jobs or increase the workload, it's scalable. Increasing memory, disk space, or servers is also easy.

Before Automic Automation, we used a solution called ControlM, though I wasn't with the company then.

The deployment of Automic Automation was fairly straightforward, though we initially had a few minor issues. It took about a year before it went live, and only three or four people were involved in the process.

The solution does require daily maintenance, which mostly involves looking at the database and archiving older data to keep it efficient.

We've seen a return on investment, particularly in terms of resources. For example, when we have an outage for an upgrade, the manual implications would be vast without Automic Automation. If we were to ask everyone to do the tasks it does manually, we would need a lot more people.

The solution seems expensive to me, but it does the job well.

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.

In the past, I had used Automic Automation during the time when it was called UC4 for month-end close automation since we were running a shared business service involving an institution related to national healthcare. Our company used to support around 130 to 140 odd hospitals, causing a peak demand for the tool Oracle E-Business Suite, which became tedious for us. Later on, we introduced Automic Automation and automated the organization's entire processes, after which there were only two people required to monitor the month-end close automation since everything else had been automated. In the beginning, it was called Appworx, and then UC4. The areas of automation I had worked on in the past were successful. At present, I might have an opportunity to again work with Automic Automation.

The tool's scheduling capabilities allow the tool to do output scans based on the report outputs. One can read the output scans, put them into variables, and do some clever calculations for decision-making which a human can do in a normal setting. Automic Automation provides its users with flexibility and a flow chart visibility, allowing users to see how things are moving if there is a need for some action before resuming the workflow. The visibility Automic Automation provides across platforms worked well for our team in the past.

People have started moving to Fusion Cloud or the cloud in general. I wonder how the software works with Fusion Cloud since I don't know if the tool is cloud compatible. I also wonder if the integration of the tool with the cloud is done via YC or if the product has an integration capability that allows it to integrate into an Oracle Cloud. My main concern is whether Automic Automation is ready for the future.

Since I use Automic Automation on-premises, I need some clarity on whether the product can also be used on the cloud.

The tool lacks interoperability features. I would like to add an interoperability feature to Automic Automation, allowing one access to some messaging functionalities. I would like to see something in the product similar to Kafka. The tool should allow one to add subscribers. The tool would become very easy to use when you have multiple clouds in the mix, along with the interoperability feature. The aforementioned set of features in the tool can make it easy to register your different cloud consumers into the tool itself, and then based on the process, it could automatically go to the respective tool for the respective cloud.

I have experience with Automic Automation for three to four years. I am a user of the product.

It was a pretty stable tool. Now when you are dependent upon automation, the knowledge to do the month-end close process is not needed and goes away since you can automate it. There aren't any businesses supporting the automation of the month-end close very aggressively, and because of this, I don't have instances where we weren't able to complete it on a timely basis.

It was a scalable solution. We used the tool for its API capabilities, after which we could integrate it with other applications.

I contacted the solution's technical support since we did have a maintenance contract with them. If we needed any advice or if there was any specific issue, we used to raise a kind of a ticket with them, which the support used to address on a priority basis. The solution's technical support has always been excellent.

I had previously used Control-M and TIBCO. I found Automic Automation to be the best of all the tools I have used.

The initial setup was very easy. For setup, out-of-the-box APIs were there for our leverage which automatically had all your concurrent jobs, and everything was available by default in the tool because of which putting it into a chain, thread, or flowchart was very easy.

The solution was deployed on-premises.

Our company had licenses for five users at that moment in time when it was pretty okay. Our company had paid around 5,000 to 6,000 USD per license for a month.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it.

The use cases of Automic 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 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.

Our company uses the solution to run scripts for customers. For each use case, we create a description and use it with the agent to schedule run times. 

Our team size ranges from 40 to 50 people and varies across clients or use cases. 

The solution includes many features and is scalable and stable. 

The automation tool provides scripting that is easy to convert for specific requirements. 

The pricing has the potential to be high because it is based on the number of servers and agents. 

I have been using the solution for five years. 

The solution's stability is better than other products. We do not see the solution fail much at all. 

We had issues with other products where servers would go down or items needed to be fixed and that caused struggles. 

The solution is scalable. 

I worked closely with technical support for overall assistance during my first installation and they were dedicated and helpful. 

I have not needed support for issues but am currently working with them to complete another installation. 

Sometimes support leaves out details, but they do help a lot with tools. 

I rate technical support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

The ease of setup depends on the person who handles it. The setup is a bit different because it includes four or five components that require separate installations. There are various steps and processes to follow. If you have knowledge of the solution, then setup is easy. 

Typical setups take 14 to 16 hours for server and data installations. 

We implement the solution for customers. 

The pricing is based on the number of servers and agents. 

Our developers chose the solution because of its scalability, stability, and features. Technical support is also much better than what competitors offer.

The solution allows us to do everything we want. We can use it for smaller items or large-scale projects with no problems. 

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.