We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch Workload Automation and Automic Workload Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly regarded for its flexibility, simplicity, and ready-made tasks. It provides live monitoring, automatic scheduling, and effective resource management. Automic Workload Automation receives acclaim for its strength, scalability, and straightforward integration. It enables control over various operating systems and products, offering a wide array of features and a user-friendly interface.
ActiveBatch Workload Automation can be enhanced in areas such as managed file transfer, licensing, cloud aspect, user interface, reliability of triggers, monitoring dashboard, price, documentation, support, and integration capabilities. Automic Workload Automation requires improvement in automation sets, language support, functionality, interface, web-based edition, file transfer, pricing, and support.
Service and Support: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has been praised for its customer service, specifically its helpful and responsive technical support. However, there are concerns about the service model and availability of the hotline. Automic Workload Automation has received mixed reviews, with some customers appreciating quick response times and helpful knowledge articles. However, others have faced challenges in reaching support and experienced delays in issue resolution.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is straightforward and uncomplicated, although it can be slightly challenging when implementing it on various operating systems. The initial setup for Automic Workload Automation can be time-consuming and intricate, taking anywhere from one to five days.
Pricing: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is highly regarded for its flexible and reasonably priced setup cost. Users find it to be competitive when compared to other tools. Automic Workload Automation has experienced pricing changes. While some users view it as expensive, they still consider it affordable in comparison to similar solutions.
ROI: Active Workload Automation has been highly regarded for its ability to generate positive financial outcomes, resulting in a notable increase in net revenue ranging from 20% to 30%. Automic Workload Automation did not provide much ROI for users and was perceived as an added expenditure.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is the preferred choice when compared to Automic Workload Automation. Users appreciate ActiveBatch for its straightforward setup process and intuitive interface, while Automic is acknowledged to have different degrees of complexity. ActiveBatch is also praised for its versatility, offering prebuilt jobs and a user-friendly configuration.
"ActiveBatch can automate predictable, repeatable processes very well. There is no real trick to what ActiveBatch does. ActiveBatch does exactly what you would expect a scheduling piece of software to do. It does it in a timely manner and does it with very little outside interference and fanfare. It runs when it is supposed to, and I don't have to jump through a bunch of hoops to double check it."
"By implementing a sophisticated scheduling mechanism, the system allows for the precise triggering of jobs at user-selected frequencies, enabling a seamless and automated execution of tasks according to specified time intervals."
"The software offers real-time monitoring and reporting features that let IT teams keep tabs on the progress of their batch operations and workflows."
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"It can connect to a number of third-party/legacy systems."
"There are hundreds of pre-built steps."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to trigger workflows, one after another, based on success, without having to worry about overlapping workflows. The ability to integrate our BI, analytics, and our data quality jobs is also valuable"
"From a scheduling point of view, it is pretty good."
"It saves a lot of time and mistakes, because we used to do a lot of manual work. Since we added automation a little bit over a year now, it has enhanced our daily work."
"It has its own object-oriented scripting language and you can reload your object in many different places."
"We have all of our payroll being done in the platform. There are a lot of different processes that need to be taken care of, and they all need to be linked together. When you put them into a workflow, and you know that you've built logic into that workflow, and you have alerting, it's something you can step back from. You don't have to be worried about every single piece of that puzzle. If something goes wrong, you have confidence that some alerting will let you know. It streamlines, it makes things go faster, less eyes on glass."
"We use it in every aspect of our IT operations, and the scalability is very good."
"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."
"It is not possible do our jobs without automation software. Automic is a great help to us."
"It works. It does not fail. If something fails, it is not Automic."
"Automation helps us. It makes our lives easier. Anything that can be automated is automated."
"The user interface can be improved so that it is more appealing and accessible to new users."
"It could be easier to provide dashboards on how many jobs are running at the same time; more monitoring."
"A nice thing to have would be the ability to comfortably pass variables from one job to another. That was one of the things that I found difficult."
"It does have a little bit of a learning curve because it is fairly complex. You have to learn how it does things. I don't know if it's any worse than any other tool would be, just because of the nature of what it does... the learning curve is the hardest part."
"Between version 10 and version 12 there was a change. In version 10, they had each object in its own folder. But on the back end, they saw it at the root level. So when we moved over to version 12, everything was in the same area mixed together. It was incredibly difficult and we actually had to create our own folders and move those objects—like schedules, jobs, user accounts—and manually put those into folders, whereas the previous version already had it."
"They should offer pricing that is more affordable."
"The documentation is very limited, and it can be improved."
"Some of the advanced features in the user interface are a bit confusing even after referring to the documents."
"The new user interface AWI could improve. It is quite easy to use and work around, but it has lost some of the functionality that we used to have in our Vim client user interface."
"The workflows should be clearer and more expressive."
"I would like to see more stability in the product and have the transition between versions be more seamless."
"The new user interface needs improvement. The previous version was good and stable. Now, we have to check the new one before using a web browser. It is not stable."
"I would like a good AWI in the next release. The AWI is not fully functional at this time."
"There is one missing part in the product concerning recurring tasks. You can schedule a recurring task by a context action, and run it as recurrent, but it creates a time container which can be quit and disappears."
"Some of the things we don't do are mainly because we don't know how to do them. Hands-on training can be expensive, so we find other ways to work around things to forgo the hands-on training. It is also an issue because we are a Linux shop and most trainers are Windows-based."
"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."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, 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 ". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs and VisualCron, whereas Automic Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation and Automic Automation Intelligence. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Automic Workload Automation 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.
