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

IBM Cloud Pak for Automation vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator comparison

IBM and Microsoft are both solutions in the Process Automation category. IBM is ranked #21 with an average rating of 9.0, while Microsoft is ranked #19 with an average rating of 9.0. IBM holds a 0.4% mindshare in PA, compared to Microsoft’s 0.8% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 33% of Microsoft users who would recommend it.
IBM Cloud Pak for Automation
Read 2 IBM Cloud Pak for Automation reviews
  • 261 Views
  • 150 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
Microsoft System Center Orc...
Read 2 Microsoft System Center Orchestrator reviews
  • 1,113 Views
  • 314 Comparison Views
33% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

Microsoft System Center Orchestrator and IBM Cloud Pak for Automation are competing products in the automation category. IBM Cloud Pak for Automation seems to have the upper hand due to its expansive feature set and long-term ROI advantages.

Features: Microsoft System Center Orchestrator provides effective integration with Microsoft ecosystems, offering robust tools for automating IT processes. It is particularly beneficial for organizations already utilizing Microsoft technologies. IBM Cloud Pak for Automation offers advanced features, including AI-driven automation and seamless integration with various enterprise systems. It supports a broad range of use cases and provides the capability to implement complex automation solutions within diverse IT landscapes.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Microsoft System Center Orchestrator offers a straightforward deployment process within Microsoft-based infrastructures and benefits from responsive support that can help ensure smooth operations. This ease of deployment makes it an appealing choice for organizations with existing Microsoft environments. On the other hand, IBM Cloud Pak for Automation requires a more intricate deployment process due to its complexity but offers extensive modular solutions and expert support that assist throughout the setup phase, especially in larger and diverse IT ecosystems.

Pricing and ROI: Microsoft System Center Orchestrator deals are often appealing to organizations already embedded in the Microsoft environment due to their cost-effectiveness. However, its feature set limits the potential ROI when compared to IBM Cloud Pak for Automation. Although IBM Cloud Pak for Automation may require higher initial setup costs, it offers better long-term ROI by delivering comprehensive automation solutions, leading to broader enterprise efficiency and cost savings. The core difference lies in Microsoft's initial cost advantages versus IBM's value-added capabilities that are designed to enhance long-term benefits.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed IBM Cloud Pak for Automation vs. Microsoft System Center Orchestrator Report (Updated: April 2025).
Buyer's Guide
IBM Cloud Pak for Automation vs. Microsoft System Center Orchestrator
April 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 846,617 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

IBM Cloud Pak for Automation
Ranking in Process Automation
21st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft System Center Orc...
Ranking in Process Automation
19th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of IBM Cloud Pak for Automation is 0.4%, down from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft System Center Orchestrator is 0.8%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

SYEDMUJTABA - PeerSpot reviewer
Effectively handles parallel instances effectively
I find it quite straightforward, perhaps around 8.5 out of 10 in terms of ease. When we upgraded from the old version of IBM BPM to the new one within IBM Cloud Pak for Automation, we didn't encounter any major issues. There were some minor ones, but they were easy to overcome.The migration process was part of our deployment strategy. We had a plan to migrate two processes per week from on-premises to the cloud. The migration involved taking the instances and migrating them to the new environment. There is an inbuilt feature in IBM Cloud Pak for Automation that facilitates the migration process, although I personally haven't conducted it myself; it's managed by my team. Overall, the setup process was relatively smooth.
Read full review
Dan Campeanu - PeerSpot reviewer
Automates tasks and manages multiple servers from a central location
The initial setup was quite complex. It required careful preparation of installation steps, as many tasks were not automated as expected. Special attention was needed to prepare groups, users, and permissions at each step to ensure a smooth setup process. Please do so accurately to avoid having to start over. Challenges encountered during deployment included issues with installation and configuration and difficulties detecting machines and executing tasks as expected. Some solutions were found through trial and error during installation, while others were discovered through recommendations from other users. Despite these challenges, the deployment and rollout of Orchestrator took approximately one and a half months to ensure proper functionality.
Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I believe two significant features of IBM Cloud Pak for Automation are the focus on SLA management and the capability to handle parallel instances effectively. Parallel instances, for instance, are valuable when dealing with a large number of users, enabling tasks to be performed concurrently for efficient system operation. The SLA aspect is crucial for tracking and ensuring timely completion of tasks. Additionally, the cloud compatibility of IBM BAW allows for seamless migration from on-premises to the cloud. This version also includes a business rule management system for storing and managing business rules effectively."
"What this product allows us to do is to move from on-prem instances where we are running independent instances of FileNet, Datacap, and ODM. It allows us to leverage container-based resiliency and availability modeling so that we have some visibility across the CP4BA ecosystem. We're now migrating all of our data to be in the Cloud Object Storage, and we can now use some of the features of Azure in terms of how we store and retrieve content for our members and our providers."
"Automation is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"It can manage multiple servers and workstations from a single location."
 

Cons

"One of the challenges we're having is finding vendors who have experience in developing on the cloud. We can find developers on the old platform, but it is leading-edge technology. So, we are having some challenges, and IBM is assisting us to find vendor partners. To be able to leverage all the capabilities of the new platform, we have to upgrade our existing ecosystem of FileNet applications. Upgrading to the new platform while trying to modernize is always challenging because it is like you have a moving target."
"I believe there is room for improvement in the user interface, particularly in the Process Portal that customers use to view and manage their tasks. The UI of the Process Portal needs enhancement. Additionally, in the next release, I would like to see improved compatibility with Angular, allowing for direct integration with front-end systems. It would be beneficial to have built-in GUI features based on Angular within the system, rather than developing separate applications externally. This, in turn, would provide a more seamless and enhanced front-end experience."
"The product's management aspect needs enhancement."
"I find the Orchestrator UI to be problematic."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"IBM Cloud Pak for Automation is relatively expensive, especially considering it is designed for long-living processes, not for normal automation needs. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the pricing at around 9. There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees, but IBM has multiple pricing models that make it expensive in its own way. Different plans are available, but overall, the experience suggests it is a costly solution."
"Its cost is almost the same or comparable to what we pay with FileNet, but I'm not sure what we pay a year. A good part of CP4BA is the CPU-based licensing model. When we're dealing with 50,000 dentists, for example, if we were to use Salesforce, we would be hit with the licensing of 50,000 dentists, whereas when we build out in CP4BA, it is just based on our CPU usage, not on individual licenses."
"I give the cost of the solution a five out of ten."
"We obtained a license that bundled Windows Server with System Center at no additional cost."
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Cloud Pak for Automation?
I believe two significant features of IBM Cloud Pak for Automation are the focus on SLA management and the capability to handle parallel instances effectively. Parallel instances, for instance, ar...
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Cloud Pak for Automation?
IBM Cloud Pak for Automation is relatively expensive, especially considering it is designed for long-living processes, not for normal automation needs. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the pr...
See all answers
What needs improvement with IBM Cloud Pak for Automation?
I believe there is room for improvement in the user interface, particularly in the Process Portal that customers use to view and manage their tasks. The UI of the Process Portal needs enhancement. ...
See all answers
What do you like most about Microsoft System Center Orchestrator?
It can manage multiple servers and workstations from a single location.
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft System Center Orchestrator?
The platform was almost free of cost for us. We obtained a license that bundled Windows Server with System Center at no additional cost.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Microsoft System Center Orchestrator?
The product's management aspect needs enhancement. It affects the visibility of powerful scripts that were previously accessible. Furthermore, the focus is shifting towards cloud-based features, sp...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

IBM BPM vs IBM Cloud Pak for Automation Logo
IBM BPM vs IBM Cloud Pak for Automation
Compared 100% of the time
More IBM Cloud Pak for Automation Competitors
ServiceNow Orchestration vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator Logo
ServiceNow Orchestration vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator
Compared 25% of the time
BizTalk Server vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator Logo
BizTalk Server vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator
Compared 20% of the time
Camunda vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator Logo
Camunda vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator
Compared 19% of the time
vCenter Orchestrator vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator Logo
vCenter Orchestrator vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator
Compared 14% of the time
OpenText Operations Orchestration vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator Logo
OpenText Operations Orchestration vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator
Compared 11% of the time
More Microsoft System Center Orchestrator Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
Process Automation
April 2025
IBM Cloud Pak for Automation reportDownload IBM Cloud Pak for Automation product report
Buyer's Guide
Process Automation
April 2025
Microsoft System Center Orchestrator reportDownload Microsoft System Center Orchestrator product report
 

Also Known As

No data available
MS System Center Orchestrator
 

Overview

IBM Cloud Pak for Automation offers design, build, run, and automation services to rapidly scale your programs and fully execute and operationalize an automation strategy.

IBM

As an IT administrator, you probably perform a lot of tasks and procedures to keep your computing environment healthy. You may have automated individual tasks, but typically, not the whole process. With System Center - Orchestrator you tie disparate tasks and procedures together using a graphical user interface Runbook Designer to create reliable, flexible, and efficient end-to-end solutions in your IT environment.

Microsoft
Buyer's Guide
IBM Cloud Pak for Automation vs. Microsoft System Center Orchestrator
April 2025
Free Report: IBM Cloud Pak for Automation vs. Microsoft System Center Orchestrator
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Cloud Pak for Automation vs. Microsoft System Center Orchestrator and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our IBM Cloud Pak for Automation vs. Microsoft System Center Orchestrator report.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.

We monitor all Process 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.