We performed a comparison between AutoSys Workload Automation and Stonebranch Universal Automation Center based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AutoSys Workload Automation is highly regarded for its ability to handle large workloads, user-friendly interface, efficient processing, and constant accessibility. It stands out in organizing tasks, initiating actions, and promptly processing batches of data. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is commended for its exceptional performance, visually appealing representations, and capability to establish job interdependencies. It provides regular updates and a reliable, adaptable solution.
AutoSys Workload Automation could improve its integration with cloud services, reporting and comparison of job performance, customization of reporting features and alerts, handling file transfer jobs, monitoring capabilities, advanced features and functionalities, and workload window management. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could benefit from being cloud-based, enhancing analytics, improving task monitor management, developing a mobile app for easier monitoring and calculation of job hours, and collaborating with the vendor for future releases.
Service and Support: Users have expressed high satisfaction with the customer service and support provided by Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. However, there is no specific mention of the customer service of AutoSys Workload Automation.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for AutoSys Workload Automation is praised for being simple, direct, and efficient, typically requiring no more than 10 minutes. The initial setup for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is considered average in terms of ease, with challenges arising from the intricate infrastructure.
Pricing: AutoSys Workload Automation requires a yearly subscription and an annual license for setup. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is regarded as more affordable than its rivals, receiving positive pricing ratings and offering comparable pricing to AutoSys.
ROI: AutoSys Workload Automation lacks details on ROI, whereas Stonebranch Universal Automation Center has demonstrated significant cost reductions of around 40% to 50% compared to previous tools for some users.
Comparison Results: AutoSys Workload Automation receives positive feedback for its straightforward setup, ability to handle growing workloads, user-friendly interface, efficient performance, and consistent availability. Users appreciate its simplicity, stability, and scalability. AutoSys offers advanced features and functionalities.
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the functions are easy to use."
"Automation of patch process."
"It can run an object on our Windows systems or our Unix systems, and then send messages to the other system when they are complete."
"The flexibility in solving job scheduling challenges allows us to successfully integrate an acquired business’ fiscal close with our own, even though there is a lot of variance as to when they run in the calendar month."
"The CA workload agent has gotten much better. For our organization it's important for us to communicate in a secure fashion between the host and the other platforms, and we are able to do that with our CA product"
"It gives us flexibility when doing releases. We can make changes for one day in a PDS member, since we stage our jobs by date, and the next day the normal job definitions are run."
"It has improved my organization by automating IT applications."
"The aggregator reporting utility which tells us our throughput in lag and latency."
"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"
"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 ability to monitor tasks that are on the open-system side as well as our mainframe side gives us a one-window view of all our processes."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"I can name the aliases on the agent, so if we need a passive environment for an agent, that's one of the nice features. If our primary goes down, I can bring up the passive one and I don't have to change anything in the scheduling world. It will start running from that new server."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"Stonebranch performs well, and the graphical representation is excellent. Overall, it requires more technical effort from our teams, but the solution is intuitive, so anybody can use it."
"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."
"Ease of implementation for upgrades."
"I would like to see the Service Orchestrator, a B2B product, and maybe a process audit."
"Quick search feature and job analysis could be improved."
"Some of the reports are either a bit hard to understand or don’t give you what you might expect to see."
"SQL server clustering is not supported."
"The GUI/Workstation is weak and needs to be improved. CA is working on this right now."
"I am looking forward to more of their dashboard features. I think it would be very valuable for us to have dashboard features that could be delivered to our customers in the form of a URL, and they could refresh that URL whenever they wanted to get up to date performance metrics out of our systems."
"Because this product only computes processing days, it is hard when things need to be scheduled according to non-processing days."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"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."
"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."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Automic Workload Automation and CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with Control-M, Redwood RunMyJobs, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, IBM Workload Automation and VisualCron. See our AutoSys Workload Automation vs. Stonebranch 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.