Automic Automation Reviews

We use it to schedule our production workload.

We scheduled our database maintenance jobs through ASP and when we did this, we scheduled them in a certain defined way that we expected them to run. And when that was initially set up, there was no consideration for a database not being available so if the jobs tried to run when a database wasn't available, obviously they wouldn't work and an operator would have to intervene.

The plan was that people would open requests to have jobs held at that time. When there were only one or two databases, that wasn't hard to maintain and people did it. When we grew to many, it became harder to do that. Then with the change in how we're doing stuff, everything happens more, servers get booted more, more changes.

We use features of the product that allow us to determine if the database is available and to only allow the jobs to run when the database is available. So that saves a lot of manpower in the one group that was opening requests to hold jobs, and in the other group which had to implement the request to hold the jobs. It eliminated all that and provided a more dynamic environment for when these jobs can run, without operator intervention. 

That is something we started about two years ago. We fully implemented it last year and we've noticed a big savings in manpower.

It's easy to use. When you schedule jobs, if you can speak English you can schedule them easily and correctly.

There's a lot of flexibility because the product allows you to do many tasks, in multiple ways, so you can choose the way that works best for your environment.

How they handle cross datacenter failover, because they have a really good High Availability solution that works well within a single sysplex, but in our environment, since we have two main datacenter locations, we have two separate sysplex. And, while when everything is working ASP can control jobs both here and in the other location, the current product does not support High Availability across datacenters. That is something we would like to see the product have.

Currently, what we have is we have a homegrown solution, because we're required to have that kind of resiliency, because it's our enterprise job scheduler.

When everything's working, we're invisible. When it's not working: "Why aren't you working?"

Stability is a 10 out of 10.

Scalability is a 10 out of 10.

Tech support is a 10 out of 10.

When I started, we were already on this product, but I do know that they were using a competing product before and they felt that this product had more of what they wanted. So they converted from the competing product to this product.

When the company chose this product, it was actually pre-CA, and then CA acquired the product. But for the most part, they've kept it what it was. While it has a new owner, it's still the same product.

I believe it's pretty straightforward. It's a complex thing by nature so it's not going to be super simple, but it's not like you can't do it either.

I believe experience helps. And in our case, we had a lot of help from the vendor, so while we, per se, didn't have the experience, there were people helping to get us going that did have the experience. So maybe I'm underestimating how much that was important, because it was available, even though it wasn't coming from me or one of my team members, but somebody else was providing it.

I'm really the technical guy. Pricing is not something that I deal with so I can't answer that question.

That would have been 20 years ago, so the market is a little different than it was back then. There are solutions today that did not exist back then. Pretty much all of the big players still exist today. But we're definitely in a different place today than we were back then.

No advice other than the normal stuff that you would do when looking at any product: Does it fit what you need? 

I would recommend doing a proof of concept before signing any contract. Everybody's stuff sounds good on paper and everybody's stuff can do everything, but what happens when you bring it in your environment? Does it do what you need it to do? Those are the most important things. The other stuff, while it's nice stuff, if you can't do what the product is required to do, then there's no value to the product.

For us, it gives us what we need so it's a good value. Forget about the price, because if the product doesn't do what you want, it doesn't matter what the price is.

I would rate the product a 10 out of 10. We use the product everyday and it works and, for the most part, every time we have a problem, it seems it's never my product's problem. It's: I have a problem because there's a problem on the system, so guess what? We're not going to be working. I need a stable system to run. 

Or if it is our problem, maybe we didn't do something we were supposed when we found out that we were supposed to do this, and we reconfigure something and then we move forward and we don't have that problem any more. Or we re-architect how we do stuff, because we've had to make tweaks of stuff as we've gone along. We would do stuff and it would work and then we would do something a little differently, and what we did, it didn't work and we'd have to figure out what the problem is and fix it.

Again, the flexibility of the product allows us to do things multiple ways. We might have started doing it one way and that worked for a while and then either something changed -whether we had more volume or we did something a little differently or we had different issues - and then we would address them with different tweaks, solutions.

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.

Automic Workload Automation is a workload automation tool.

Automic Workload Automation's use cases are primarily focused on large enterprise users. With over 3,500 customers, the tool is well-suited for core automation tasks in various sectors, especially in the banking industry where Automic has a strong presence. The platform offers largest number of out-of-the-box integrations which sets it apart from other workload automation solutions. This integration capability is a key area where Automic Workload Automation excels.

Unlike other Orchestration or Workload Automation tools, Automic Workload Automation stands out as a versatile single solution capable of handling various use cases such as business process automation, workload automation, service orchestration, and DR automation. There's no need for additional tools to make it compatible with your specific use case. Automic Workload Automation can handle it all without requiring any sideline tools to be installed.

The concept is that with a single skill set, you can automate all your daily automation requirements.

Automic Workload Automation offers a useful scripting language that is built on top of JCL. Unlike other workload automation tools in the market that have to rely on third-party integrators, such as Python to develop their own scripts, Automic Workload Automation provides a scripting language that can be easily implemented with support from the vendor. This makes the implementation process smooth and hassle-free, and the scripting language can be used to run any impetus within the process. With the help of this scripting language, there are no limitations to what can be automated. Automic Workload Automation provides a flexible and powerful solution for automating various tasks.

The solution can be deployed quickly with Kubernetes which is useful.

There are frequent updates fixing vulnerabilities and other problems.

Automic Workload Automation could improve the SaaS deployment.

The vendor should provide updated features for customers to try on a trial basis.

I have used Automic Workload Automation for approximately within the last 12 months.

The solution is stable. My customers have not raised tickets in years.

Automic Workload Automation is highly scalable, such as adding endpoints. There is little maintenance required. With a Kubernetes installation, there are auto-scaling and other helpful features.

We have over 3,000 users using the solution worldwide. Additionally, we have SMBs and other customers. We have customers in all industries, such as retail, banks, insurance companies, aviation industries, and airlines.

Automic Workload Automation has been in the market for 10 to 15 years, which has made it a strong and reliable solution. The platform has a large and active community, as well as partner networks available worldwide that contribute to the community. If you encounter any issues, the Broadcom community is always available to provide support, and the technical support team is also excellent. In the past, there were some issues related to connection issues, which affected all sectors, especially the fourth part. However, Automic has been actively working on improving the support side since 2009 and has been highly accurate in providing support.

Initially, deploying Automic Workload Automation was challenging, but it has become much simpler. However, if you want to set it up in a distributed environment, it may take a day or two due to critical sites and firewall requirements. For a single box installation, it hardly takes thirty minutes to set up.

We do the implementation of the solution. We have all specialized documentation that we follow making the process simple for us. We can deploy the agents from the console ourselves.

The cost of the solution depends on the number of systems that are being orchestrated.

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.

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. 

The Zero Upgrade feature is the most valuable. 

Its dashboard can be improved. In version 12, they have already moved to a web-based interface from a UI. We are looking into this feature now. We are also looking for available APIs that we can use to interface the engine into our other systems.

There should be a subservice facility that we can use to interface with Microsoft Teams and send out authorization on job executions. We have seen a feature like this in other products that we are looking into.

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

It is stable. We are not experiencing any major issues.

It is scalable. Around 30 people are using it in our organization. 

We previously had platinum support, and we were very happy with their technical support. After we moved away from platinum support, their technical support is just not that good.

We only had MSTs previously. We shifted to Automic Workload Automation because we wanted to integrate SAP and other business requirements. 

We are now looking into other products outside Automic because of its cost. We have shortlisted BMC Control-M, Stonebranch, ActiveBatch, and IBM.

The initial setup was complex because we have multiple endings running in every country that we manage. We also have an active-active setup and two instances running on one machine. We use it to widen our range so that we can have two engines running on the same machine. 

It is currently deployed on a private cloud and on-premises. We have around ten people to maintain this solution.

It costs too much. That's why we are now looking at other products.

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

The primary use case is workload automation in our SAP area. The performance is fine.

We have seen improvements in time efficiency and cost resources, because we are mainly focused on the SAP area, and its automation in that part. We also have some other complex areas where we help the applications with their processes. Unfortunately, we do not use it in the automation of those parts in the infrastructure, like other companies have talked to here. Therefore, our company is still meant to be for SAP Scheduler, and not given the necessary management attention. 

It helps in the usual business, though it does not help us get in front of our competitors.

• Flexibility
• Easy to use
• Stable automation engine
• We do not have to use a broad variety of agents to connect to different types of systems.

• 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.
• One topic, which we would like, is to be able to have more differentiate in the reorganization of SAP to more precisely view which types of objects and clients would be reorganized and archived. The archive file is not helpful for us. If we write the archive file, we do not use them because in the past the tools were not that satisfying. 
• Improvements also would be good in the area of performance measurement.The system overview and performance are not being measured because we can't derive any concrete information.

The stability is fine. There are always a few little parts or points with issues, but overall, it is very stable.

It is quite stable in terms of size and requirements. The stable environment does not matter that much. However, the product, with it types of agents, and the sizeable automation engine, seems to be highly scalable.

We have been satisfied with the technical consultants. We ordered them for special situations. 

Technical support is different. Sometimes it is fast and very helpful, sometimes it seems to be bureaucratic and slow. It depends on the questions. Over the last few years, we have noticed it worsening. Ten years ago, there was more personal contact. We had the feeling that the support was much more involved in the system and better informed in the topics. Because of the very high speed of growth, there are only a few dozen of people with ten years of experience, which is another problem of size.

Initial reason was the projects which from SAP R2 to R3. That was the reason why they looked for a different scheduling system. 

Meanwhile, we are controlling nearly all SAP systems that we have, so it has a three digit number. In this area, no one has any idea of using a different tool for it. The another direction where we hope that we can move into other directions, but without the necessary management, it can't.

The people involved in the initial setup were convinced that they had the right product and absolutely satisfied with the setup in 2001.

I know that it was evaluated against other tools in 2000, but I do not know which ones.

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.

It is basically for workload automation. Automic has also got other features, but we are not using them. We are just sticking to workload automation. We basically do batch processing through automation. We mostly have nightly batches and cyclical batches during the daytime.

The reason we went with Automic is very simple. We were using ESP, which was a Broadcom product. So, Automic happened to be a natural fit. It was a much easier transition from ESP to Automic. We had familiarity with the vendor and the product.

There are pain points, like anything else. Sometimes, things they say work, and sometimes, they don't work. You need to find out why they don't work and then go back and have them fixed. 

We have been using it for close to a year.

Like any product, there are glitches. We had used ESP for almost 30 years. So, we were very familiar with the tool, and it was pretty stable. This is an agent-based solution. So, sometimes, the agents don't respond and triggers don't work. Those kinds of issues are still there.

Workload automation is not heavy stuff. When things have to happen, they just wake up and do the work. It is not like an E-commerce solution where your workload is going to increase by X factor and then you add X servers. It is not that way. So, from a scalability point of view, it is scalable.

They're pretty okay. We worked with CA before Broadcom bought them. So, we've got a long working relationship with them for over 20 years, and their support is pretty okay.

They work with a partner to help you with implementation and migration. The partner had tools for migration from ESP to Automic, which was helpful.

Its price is way up there with BMC. It is a little bit on the expensive side.

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.

I use Automic Workload Automation for SAP-related use cases. They are primarily functional and nonfunctional job executions for SAP Windows Unique. So, mainly for a business process or business functions, job execution, and creating dependencies related to retail like Oracle and SAP jobs execution.

I like that Automic Workload Automation has many features compared to other products. There are a lot of good features, and architecture-wise there is a valuable client concept. The architecture and the multi-tenancy is a multi-client concept. That is also useful.

The manage file transfer area could be better. The file transfer area needs improvement. Other products like Control-M have some good features in this area.

I have been working with Automic Workload Automation for the last ten years.

Automic Workload Automation is a stable solution. It's good because, architecture-wise, it has high reliability. So, we recommend it to our customers and ask them to use two or three-node architecture. If one goes down, the other should be up. So, two or three-node architecture is stable.

Automic Workload Automation is a scalable solution. Scalability depends on the architecture. We are currently running 10,000 jobs or 20,000 jobs with two-node architecture. If we want to add one node or if we're going to add more resources, you can do it online. You do not need any downtime. You can run thousands of pages and millions of jobs.

Technical support is good. I worked with a particular dedicated client, and we had to reach out to Broadcom once or twice a month for help. Whenever we raised a ticket, they responded within a day or the next day. Most of the time, it wasn't even an urgent issue.

Nowadays, they have very helpful knowledge articles. If I have an error and they share some knowledge articles, I get the solution through those articles. They are helpful.

The initial setup is straightforward. It hardly takes half an hour or one hour, but small components like agents must be installed later. The initial fresh installation will take about one hour.

I'm not sure about licensing costs, but I know the base price is about $3,000, and you can get some kind of discount per node.

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.