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

Automic Automation vs Stonebranch comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 25, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Automic Automation
Ranking in Workload Automation
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Stonebranch
Ranking in Workload Automation
17th
Average Rating
8.8
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2024, in the Workload Automation category, the mindshare of Automic Automation is 6.6%, up from 6.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Stonebranch is 4.8%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Workload Automation
 

Featured Reviews

KF
Aug 22, 2024
Comprehensive, integrates well, and provides a single point of view
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.
Sushil-Singh - PeerSpot reviewer
Nov 30, 2023
Allows you to schedule jobs on applications like Informatica and SAP
Two people are using this solution in my company. It's deployed on a private cloud It improved the batch cycles in background and helping everyone to receive the files and reports on time without miss and client is happy from this tool without much escalations, issue it is working fine and…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Our customers appreciate it mostly because it takes a lot of effort away from them."
"We use the FTP agent excessively, and the connection is easy to handle between our company and the outside."
"The solution helped us fix issues and optimize them. We now run with zero errors."
"Our company uses it to connect different systems."
"An important feature is the ability to modify PeopleSoft Run Controls at run-time."
"The monitoring and troubleshooting features are rich and with the dashboards and other features, automation work is made easier."
"You gain a lot of time and effort because you can automatize many things. Repetitive tasks costs us, so we can reduce them to zero effort and minimal costs by using the product."
"We use it to automate our business."
"I love the Universal Controller. It's been great for us. We host it on-premise... It's High Availability, meaning there's failover from one server to the other if one goes down."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"The tasks are incredibly capable, and as long as you name them with a nice, uniform naming convention, they are very useful. You can create some interesting workflows through various machines, or you can just have it kick off single tasks. All in all, I really like the Universal Task. You can do some mutually exclusive stuff, such as an "A not B" kind of thing. It has a lot of capabilities behind the scenes."
"When it comes to agent technology and compatibility with other vendors, from a platform perspective it was the one vendor that fit all the platforms that we have, from your old platforms - mainframe, NSK, IBM i - to the new ones, going into cloud and container"
"The Universal Agent is the most valuable feature. Being agent-based and being able to go across multiple technology stacks, which is what our workflows do, Stonebranch gives us the ability to bridge those disparate technologies. It enables us to remove the dependency-gap with the agent so we know the status of the workflow at each step."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"For the user interface of version 12.1, I cannot find a lot of utilities and objects from previous versions, making me change my habits. This is not good."
"It is a bit of a problem, because they like to do email ping-pong via their web page. Sometimes, it would be much easier if someone would call you on the phone."
"Every time we have an upgrade for a new version, we have stability problems, because the versions are not as good as they should be."
"From my point of view, the current product needs more stability."
"I am heading up the AWI. I desperately miss the possibility to show my read-only users on the Explorer side only their folders, not all the folders."
"In terms of what can be improved, we are in Israel, so we work in Hebrew. Now they are starting to move it also from English to Hebrew and to support the language, but for us it has been very difficult because the Hebrew looks like gibberish. So there are language issues."
"One hiccup we've had is due to the fact that we have other internal scheduling tools. We're able to talk to them, but we have trouble with some of the networking between them, so we're still trying to work out the kinks there."
"There is a component called the OMS, which is the message broker. We rely on infrastructure, resiliency, and availability for that piece. If that could change to be highly available just as a software component, so that we don't have to provide the high-available storage, etc. for it, that would be a plus. It would just be cheaper to run."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"There is room for improvement with its connectivity with the Microsoft SRS system. It is very weak. They keep telling us it works with it, and technically it does, but it does not provide a lot of visibility. We have lost a lot of visibility migrating to Stonebranch, compared with just running tasks on the SRS server. That's really about the only thing that is a sore point for us."
"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."
"The Universal Controller is decent for the money it costs... It needs some work to have full features, compared to other products that are out there, specifically IBM's Workload Scheduler."
"Occasionally, we have an agent that doesn't come back up after patching. That doesn't happen very often... It's really just a restart of the agent and it comes back up. But that might be one thing that could be improved."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"They have changed the pricing on their licensing, and it's cheaper than before."
"It costs to scale. While, it is scalable, the add-ons are expensive."
"The solution seems expensive to me, but it does the job well."
"The pricing is based on the number of servers and agents."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"We cannot use all the functions because they are too expensive."
"We came to a very good deal, but it took us three years to finalize."
"It has helped us reduce costs."
"The price of the solution is at a medium level compared to the competition."
"Stonebranch is cheaper than Control-M, so many companies are using Stonebranch."
"I don't have pricing information, but I do know it's cheaper than our old legacy system. Other than the standard licensing fees there are no additional costs."
"We're transaction-based, as far as our licensing goes. We have 50,000 transactions a month and our licensing cost is $55,000 a year..."
"When we reviewed this solution against other vendors, Stonebranch blew everybody out of the water in terms of cost."
"Outside of licensing fees, there aren't any other costs."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.
801,394 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Computer Software Company
11%
Insurance Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
16%
Insurance Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

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 needs improvement with Automic Workload Automation?
The support has declined somewhat over the years due to various takeovers. It's not as personal as it used to be.
What do you like most about Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?
We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?
The pricing is good. I would rate it eight out of ten. The pricing is similar to AutoSys. It's lower than Redwood, which was on the higher side in terms of pricing.
What needs improvement with Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?
It can be hard to manage the task monitor. We are still working with the vendor, and we are trying to make the changes as per our requirements. We are asking them to build some new solutions so the...
 

Also Known As

Automic Dollar Universe
Stonebranch Universal Automation Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Adidas, 84.51, ESB
Nissan, Coop, United Supermarkets, Groupon, CSC, Orbitz, Johnson & Johnson, BMW, Qantas.
Find out what your peers are saying about Automic Automation vs. Stonebranch and other solutions. Updated: September 2024.
801,394 professionals have used our research since 2012.