AutoSys Workload Automation Reviews

The most valuable features of AutoSys Workload Automation are the file transfer protocol and file watcher. The solution has a user-friendly user interface. It is very simple to use. You have a scope of all your jobs, jobs are what you call tasks that you will automate in the solution. It lets you monitor everything in these jobs.

AutoSys Workload Automation could improve in the Linux environment. The previous versions of the AutoSys Workload Automation let you take the profile of the user that you were using to run the tasks that you're going to automate, but in the latest versions, you can't do that, you need to make more definitions and it's a little bit difficult. It was easier in the previous versions.

In an upcoming release, AutoSys Workload Automation could include more integrations capabilities. I have seen other tools that have native integrations with other tools, such as Docker and other services in the cloud. They are not taking this into account in AutoSys Workload Automation.

I have been using AutoSys Workload Automation for approximately two years.

We have approximately 15 administrations who use this solution, but the tool is made to work for all the infrastructure of the organization, we could have more users.

The technical support is great, they have helped us a lot.

The initial configuration of AutoSys Workload Automation was simple. When you need to make a migration from previous versions or from other tools, it's easy. There are some complexities, but it is not something that is impossible, it can be very simple.

I rate AutoSys Workload Automation an eight out of ten.

We use it for batch processing. We're a service bureau, so a number of our customers contract with us to use it for mainframe batch processing.

There are certain batch jobs that need to run on a regular basis in order for our customers to receive reports and updates, and CA-7 provides that for us. So that improves the function of our agencies.

The ability to create calendars, calendaring for batch jobs to run on a scheduled frequency.

The cross-platform arena, where you can run work on multiple platforms, needs improvement.

Stability is a 10 out of 10.

Scalability is a nine out of 10.

Technical support is a 10 out of 10.

We used punch cards back in 70s and 80s. This is the solution that took over from IBM punch cards.

I did not do the initial setup.

I certainly think the pricing is worth the value.

Evaluate whether it performs all the functions you need for batch processing.

Cross-platform functionality.

Inherit Dependencies. Reduces scheduling errors for holiday processing.

Documentation and cross-application externals.

No issues.

No issues.

Excellent.

Jobtrac. We switched because of a contractual dispute.

Changing scheduling tools will never be a simple process, but the conversion tools and specialist assigned to us made it a smoother transition.

Pricing model for distributed should have an Enterprise option.

Yes.  IBM TWS/OPC, BMC Control-M and ASG-Zeke.

I recommend using the conversion services provided by CA.

The product does all of our enterprise scheduling. 

We use it for a number of our clients. So far, we have had great success with it. It works constantly and is pretty seamless. You do not have to open up many support tickets. The product works very well for us.

Ease of use.

I am more interested in converting more schedulers over to this particular solution, so the ease of the conversion tools.

We have not pushed it to its limit.

We were being pushed by BMC, and CA came forth and gave us a lower cost solution.

The system programmer who worked on the project, he actually set it up within a week. There was a couple of tweaking, turning, and configurations that had to be done after that, but it was up and running in about 10 days. We were able to convert another scheduler over to it without an issue.

LRS, Rocket Software, and CA. We chose CA because of the support of the products and the relationship.

As far as I know, the product is just doing its job for us at this point.

If researching this solution and on an existing scheduler, just make sure you can convert over to this particular solution without risk. 

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: How we work together. I have to trust them. Also, their overall support. 

CA Workload Automation AutoSys Edition is one of the most powerful schedulers that you have on the open systems, or going between Window servers; to be able to schedule and take advantage of the different powers that the automation has with it.

I've taken advantage of not only the normal command jobs and stuff like that, but I've turned them into using the proper plugins, the job types. One of the things that I have found out is that I'm the one that's using most of the job types, because I've taken away the need for writing or scripting processes. When somebody knows the database and knows how to write SQL code, or they know how to write a stored procedure, they don't need to know how to write scripting in order to run their scripts.

It's a little bit of a cost savings thing by using a plugin and using the different job types that AutoSys has. It goes the same thing when you're running a web service and you want to update stuff.

Taking care of the customers is the number one thing for any client; the client that I'm with, it's the same thing. They want to make sure that the customers are happy.

The benefit of using this product is the fact that your return on investment is major. When you don't have to teach people how to script or how to write different codes because of the way they connect to stuff, you're saving money, because you're able to put stuff into a production environment in a much faster solution.

We're also able to update our customers and let them know via apps to be able to see from using a web service to run and they log in to see what their activity is or what the status is on their stuff. It's updated immediately.

Cost benefits are amazing because somebody doesn't have to call a customer service person and sit on the phone for 30 minutes to find out the same thing they can find out in two seconds on the internet.

To make it a lot more user-friendly, in order to make it so other people can use it without having to do much training with it; the more user-friendly it is, the easier it is to work with.

The product has been out since 2.0 which is when I started working with this Workload Automation and, have seen it grow to a more powerful system that has been able to resolve all types of different automation appliances.

Customer Service is as always a high quality and, have had great success with getting any issues resolved.

Great working with the Tech team.

I think it's one of the most powerful workload automation processes that are out there. It is able to reach across platforms. It's able to reach across appliances. It's able to update.

It's a matter of your return on investment. It goes right back to that. How much do you want to spend, but how much are you going to save?

• Top-notch scheduling features and functionality
• Reliability, performance and stability
• Advanced GUI to manage the batch, flexibility to schedule jobs on various business needs

• Improved batch processing with PROD monitoring to take corrective actions on batch issues
• Implemented scheduling predecessors/successors conditions

I would like to see advancement in predictive analysis, trending and reporting.

I have used it for 20+ years.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support is excellent.

We previously used a different solution. We consolidated into a strategic scheduling product because it is easier to manage and operate.

Initial setup is complex. It requires technical skills in various flavors of distributed/enterprise H/W, S/W, databases to implement, configure and develop high-availability options.

Review licensing calculation is based on criteria. I recommend not to license based on the number of jobs.

We evaluated other options, including Maestro, CA7, and Control M, to name a few.

Look for industry trends, overall deployment, scale and scope, features and functionality and vendor support structure/relationship.

I have a lot of jobs that run using CA 7. So I work with my production analysts to set up processes that helps me do things that I don't have to do manually.

One of the things I do is that I am in charge of replication. We replicate from Livingston, New Jersey through Fort Worth, Texas, and replication from time to time will drop because people do things that cause links go down. So when they fail, there is a manual way to recover them, but I have to type out all these commands. Because I know what I need to do I put stuff in jobs and using CA Process Automation and CA 7 together to bring over my replication without ever doing anything manually.

I've used this product for a long time, but the GUI to me feels outdated. I know how to use it well, but it feels old.

We've used it for over 20 years.

Deployment is not an issue.

CA 7 is stable all the time.

It's very scalable. There's no problem there.

I haven't had to use technical support.

I wasn't involved in the setup.

I'm sure 90% of the world uses CA 7, so it's a known product.

We use it as an IT process automation solution.

We automate recurring processes, keeping track of IT processes controlled worldwide.

We often have to implement complicated processes. Automic Automation Engine provides us the ability to map logic using a scripting language. We have an advantage where practically all automation problems can easily be implemented within the Automation Engine.

We see improvement possibilities in the processing provision of predefined evaluations or individual objects, or in the Self Service portal, which can be used by any user to monitor objects or start objects.

We have had no issues.

We have had no issues.

Technical support is always very helpful, though we do not use it often. 

All our problems have been resolved so far. Tips have also been provided on how we can handle a problem.

We had scheduled jobs on a mainframe system. By replacing the mainframe with a Unix system, we also changed the scheduler.

The setup of the system was relatively easy. 

We had good local support from Automic.

Everyone has to decide for themselves which licensing model is best suited to their environment.

We evaluated between different scheduling systems. We finally decided on the Automic solution.

Consult onsite support for the first implementation. Errors made at the beginning can only be corrected with great effort afterwards.