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

HCL Workload Automation vs IBM Workload Automation comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

HCL Workload Automation
Ranking in Workload Automation
23rd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM Workload Automation
Ranking in Workload Automation
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Workload Automation category, the mindshare of HCL Workload Automation is 2.4%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Workload Automation is 8.4%, up from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Workload Automation
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1418508 - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to set up, good support, and helps to decrease project costs
With the mainframe environment that we have, it is more similar to the HCL migration, or the workload scheduler. We also like the CWHC utilities; they are more current and under the umbrella of HCL. It reduces project risks. Easy to set up, it doesn't require a lot. You can start working immediately. Migration is increased while it decreases the cost of the project.
Ilhami Arikan - PeerSpot reviewer
With an easy setup phase in place, agent-based installation can be done in minutes
Sometimes we have issues with the solution's stability. So, stability can be improved. Reporting and visibility of the solution need improvement. These days, we need more visibility. We need to access the logs and databases easily. You need to keep track of the running number of logs, like which ones are executed, completed, etc. So if there would be a good reporting dashboard, then it would be good. There's room for improvement in the solution since it is a challenging thing when we want to use the solution's technology with our new technologies. For example, if we need to use TWS on our OpenShift platform, the solution's API is not capable enough. So the product itself needs to be aligned with new technologies.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Easy to set up, it doesn't require a lot."
"Technical support from IBM is very good."
"The support from Cisco is very good. I was with them as a company for 40 years"
"This solution has a request feature where users can request the added features they need to have developed. Based on client voting for those features, these are developed and released."
"The solution helps automate processes so that the workload can be handled on a daily basis."
"The whole product is valuable because it is a tool for batch automation."
"Provides a robust, full spectrum enterprise-wide WLA platform."
"The initial setup is easy."
"It offers features like MDM and a Windows workstation, although there are some technical dependencies. It is more user-friendly and also includes failover and failback capabilities. While both systems offer high availability, Control-M's high availability is superior to AWS's."
 

Cons

"The interface needs some improvements."
"Slow down on the releases a bit. I fully understand that IWA functionality is increasing at an amazing rate, but trying to keep up with the upgrades is rough."
"There should be more custom documentation, specifically around Java APIs. There should also be more training. In terms of features, we are currently using only 50% of its features. We don't use all features that are available, but there is always room for improvement in all of the tools."
"The configuration of IBM Workload Automation has some challenges. We have a difficult time customizing it, but it is similar to other solutions."
"IBM needs to move away from its native terminology and adopt a more cloud-centric approach."
"It would be helpful to have a mobile app that could be used to follow the job schedule."
"It should support other schedulers that aren't IBM products."
"This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly."
"The performance of the previous versions could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is about one-third of the cost of a controller."
"The solution's pricing is affordable."
"To my knowledge, IWA is the only WLA product that will provide "parallel tracking" capability to assist in upgrading from one platform to IWA."
"The contract is with the customer with whom we are working, so IBM is not directly involved in this."
"Pricing depends on the number of agents that you install."
"We transitioned from a server license to per job license, and that saved us a lot money."
"The solution is a little bit expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Insurance Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
32%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with IBM Workload Automation?
IBM needs to move away from its native terminology and adopt a more cloud-centric approach. For example, IBM still refers to machines as 'workstations,' whereas other systems, like Control-M, use m...
 

Also Known As

No data available
IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler, IBM TWS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Standard Life Group, Banca Popolare di Milano, A*STAR, ArcelorMittal Gent
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC, Broadcom, Redwood Software and others in Workload Automation. Updated: November 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.