Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Automic Automation vs Rocket Zena comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 25, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Automic Automation
Ranking in Workload Automation
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
93
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Rocket Zena
Ranking in Workload Automation
13th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Workload Automation category, the mindshare of Automic Automation is 6.9%, up from 6.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rocket Zena is 3.3%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Workload Automation
 

Featured Reviews

AnkitSrivastava - PeerSpot reviewer
Good automation, handles complex jobs, and is easy to manage
We do use the solution for business-critical processes. We have a lot of complex jobs. They are using multiple databases to connect to one master. We execute jobs on multiple databases. I'm currently working with Broadcom and have created a few alert mechanisms for bug alerts. When we find bugs and report them, we can get hard fixes applied. The solution's ability to handle large volumes of data is very good. I've been happy with it. We can improve so many things by 20% or more. It's a very costly product, and the client who is paying for it needs to see results, and so far, they are. The GUI interface is very good. It's user-friendly, even for new users. Within a few days, they can learn the solution. It's easy to learn and not overly complex. In one console, we can run multiple executions and manage the load balancer, et cetera. It's very easy now to manage complex workflows using this product. We can maximize agent performance. We can execute a large number of jobs. Compared to other tools, it's much more efficient. The visibility and control is excellent. The predictive modeling provided by AI is very good. We can implement fixes automatically as well. Its predictive modeling has been very critical. Jobs are executing on this and that is very important. Even if the master is down for an hour, the company can lose millions of dollars, so having that predictability is key to managing downtime in advance. We can reduce our job workload failure rates across multiple cloud environments. For example, if we have servers and we are installing agents in the master, we can create agents on multiple servers and we can execute jobs on both agents at one time. That way, if one server goes down, there is no disruption. The jobs will execute on the second agent - and no human interface is required for the task. We've been able to save time. Previously, we were dependent upon so many team members, and it would take one week to create one console or one tool. However, now, within three or four hours, we are creating one master and agents. We save six days. It's comprehensive - but we do have an audit feature. We have a separate audit team and in the tool itself, we have audit automation so we can run audits on a quarterly basis. Sometimes we have big queries and the data is massive and difficult to manage. However, with this product, we can schedule a job and, in three months, we can get a report directly without wasting time. It's safer in terms of audit requirements. With the tool, we've been able to save on operational costs. With other tools, we had difficulty with management, and there were so many dependencies on so many teams. With one console, we can create multiple agents that run on Oracle and have one point of control with multiple features. We can run the solution on both cloud and on-prem environments. We're 90% cloud currently. However, 10% is still left on-prem. Our plan is to move 100% to the cloud.
JuanGonzalez6 - PeerSpot reviewer
A continuously evolving, stable solution, with responsive support
The visual whiteboard for design and execution included with the solution is very crucial to those who are new to Rocket Zena, especially so that the learning curve is minimized and they can focus on accomplishing the task. We process our system's payroll through Rocket Zena. The fact that it's a multi-process, multi-layered application, means that we can rely on the solution for kicking off processes, notifying user vendors of the steps, completions, error logging, and historic events from the previous run times. Rocket Zena's ability to automate jobs on the mainframe as a distribution workload automation solution is good. The solution continuously improves over time. We're eager to start the latest upgrade this coming year that'll put us on the cloud. Hopefully, this will improve the product even more. We can run things natively without the scheduler if needed. The solution working properly and up to date without the need for a mainframe scheduler is crucial. We use the solution to manage a few complex operational workflows end-to-end across multiple technology stacks. Rocket Zena does a great job of simplifying our cross-platform processes through automation. The solution helps speed operations up and keeps them automated allowing us to focus on other priorities. The solution helps increase our completion rates by working overnight to meet our SLAs. Rocket Zena completes 30 percent of our workload outside of our standard work hours. Rocket Zena's cross-platform job scheduling helped us save around 40 percent of programming time by automating repetitive tasks. We use the solution to transfer our current files and keep up with our infrastructure on a few automated jobs, such as refreshing our database which happens overnight. The solution helped free up around 15 percent of our engineer's time to focus on more value-added work.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature is that I do not have to wait for one job to finish, then manually click on the next one to start. Automation is the best feature."
"The user interface is very simple and straightforward."
"We have a lot of governance and compliance requirements as a bank that we can fulfill with this product."
"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."
"The night processing helps to have data just-in-time for the morning."
"It will increase all delivery due to an impact on efficiency, in terms of time and faster resources."
"The workflow allows us to integrate multiple applications into one flow and come up with a business result."
"All the components that it can use to design work flow; process automation."
"The most valuable feature is the FTP file transfer."
"I like the whole product, but specifically, I like the license part. It's very easy to acquire a license for this product."
"From a Linux configuration point of view, Rocket Zena is straightforward. It's fairly easy to set up the server and agents once you know how to do it."
"In the latest upgrade, Zena added a web-based client. The more I use it, the more I like it. It's an excellent interface. They do a good job of steadily improving the solution to make it more useful."
"Its FTP feature is very good, as is scheduling any process or task with the Zena client. I have found it to be very helpful. If a task fails, it gives you a prompt."
"You can click Ctrl-G and bring a diagram view. You're able to view in a diagram format. The view that it provides is easy, and you can move to the left, up, or down. You can double-click on a certain process. It'll drill into that process and all of its underlying components. You can double-click on an arrow or a component, and it'll bring up a screen that'll have all the variables that are assigned to that particular piece, as well as the values at run time. So, the diagram feature of it, at least for me, is pretty valuable."
"I have found the scheduling feature the most valuable. I can map dependencies by using ASG-Zena. It gives a nice, quick visualization as to where things are."
"We haven't had any problems since we installed it. It runs as expected, we haven't had any critical problems. It helps keeps the business running 24/7."
 

Cons

"I would like to see the event engine in the next release."
"There are certain jobs that are triggered one after another. It would be helpful to have a more user-friendly way of seeing how these jobs are connecting from one server to another."
"I would like to see more stability in the product and have the transition between versions be more seamless."
"The web-based edition is missing a lot of the most important features available in Automic, we have absence. For example, when I'm scheduling a job, there is normally a flag that you can toggle to activate and deactivate the task, but that doesn't work properly in the web version. It's missing a lot of the calendar and scheduling features."
"I should be able to grant a user access to execute a job without having to directly list every include, prompt set, output scan, script, login, etc. An inherited read for execution purposes would accomplish the same results without making the admin list every single object every time, as well as deny the user the ability to edit."
"This solution's out-of-box automation sets could be improved. They could be industry standardized out-of-box, or even runbook automation processes could be useful—just some plug-and-play automation processes out-of-box. It has many integration capabilities, from APIs to databases, but if the customer sees some out-of-box automation processes in it, it could be useful."
"The SSH agent is missing in version 12.1. Maybe it would be a good addition to see on the web client of the next version of Atomic."
"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."
"Another one that is probably a little bit bigger for me is that when there is an issue or there's an error, it writes on a different screen. I have to find the actual process name and go to a different screen to view the alert that got generated. On that screen, everyone's processes, not just the processes of the folks in my department, are thrown. It takes me a while to find the actual error so that I could go in there and look at the alert. It could be because of the way it was set up, but at least for me, it isn't too intuitive."
"In the web interface, it stacks the tasks across the top, and they accumulate until you close or clean those out. That seems a little cumbersome. You must right-click and close all tabs constantly to keep the console clean and manage your views."
"In the next release, I would like the user experience to be improved. The user interface should be more appealing to gen-z."
"The UI is not intuitive, and it would be nice if there was a web interface."
"Rocket Zena is a mainframe-based job scheduler. I would like it to be more open so that we can use it on a distributed platform."
"One area where it could be improved is communication between the different servers. Sometimes there are processes that have already been completed but we get a status notification that they're still active."
"The documentation has room for improvement."
"The scheduling mapping is a little disjointed. There is no wizard-type approach. There are a lot of different things that you have to do in completely different areas. They could probably add the functionality for creating all components of a mapping or an OPA schedule. The component creation could be done collectively rather than through individual components."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Automic Automation is costly."
"This is a support system for us, not our core business, so we purchased this product inexpensively."
"We receive time efficiency from this product."
"We have increased efficiency with this application."
"There are a lot of new features, but we do not use them because they are too expensive. The price point could be less."
"Do your own proof of concept. Make sure you know what you want. Be clear about what you want the product to do for you. Go out and meet with the vendor, then test it."
"You do not need any humans to start jobs, so you can save a lot of money."
"The cost of arrays is high. If you want to buy an array for an application, and see value from it, you need about half a million dollars. That is too expensive."
"The pricing and the licensing are good. It is affordable and can be used to improve and optimize productivity."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
11%
Insurance Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
29%
Insurance Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Automic Workload Automation?
It is easy to manage complex workloads and use electronic workflow automation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Automic Workload Automation?
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.
What needs improvement with Automic Workload Automation?
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 i...
What do you like most about Rocket Zena?
In the latest upgrade, Zena added a web-based client. The more I use it, the more I like it. It's an excellent interface. They do a good job of steadily improving the solution to make it more usefu...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Rocket Zena?
The pricing and the licensing are good. It is affordable and can be used to improve and optimize productivity.
What needs improvement with Rocket Zena?
In the web interface, it stacks the tasks across the top, and they accumulate until you close or clean those out. That seems a little cumbersome. You must right-click and close all tabs constantly ...
 

Also Known As

Automic Dollar Universe
ASG-Zena
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Adidas, 84.51, ESB
Fraternidad Muprespa
Find out what your peers are saying about Automic Automation vs. Rocket Zena and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.