We performed a comparison between Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition 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: Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition stands out for its robust job definition capabilities, intuitive interface, live event monitoring, and seamless integration with different systems. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is praised for its exceptional performance, visually appealing graphical representation, and efficient task monitoring.
Redwood has the potential for improvement in reporting capabilities, monitoring and alert services, user interface, outage identification, and other aspects. Stonebranch has room for enhancement in cloud availability, analytics, task monitoring, and collaboration with the vendor.
Service and Support: The customer service for Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition has received generally positive feedback, although there is some room for improvement. Customers express satisfaction with the support they have received. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center's customer service is highly praised, particularly for its excellent technical support and knowledgeable team. Users rate their support as nine out of ten.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition was difficult and took a lot of time, whereas Stonebranch Universal Automation Center had a relatively easy setup. Redwood Software necessitated training multiple teams and managing a decentralized structure, whereas Stonebranch had a more user-friendly graphical user interface (GUI) for setup.
Pricing: Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition has a higher initial cost, however, users find it worth the investment, and the license renewal process is straightforward. In contrast, Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is more affordable compared to its competitors and necessitates an annual license fee.
ROI: Users of Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition have experienced significant time savings and improved job scheduling, resulting in ROI. One user gave it a perfect rating. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center has led to cost savings.
Comparison Results: Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition is the preferred choice over Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. Redwood Software offers a comprehensive solution with strong job definition and building capabilities, a user-friendly interface, real-time event monitoring, and cloud automation. It also includes features such as load balancing, memory management, and mobile notifications.
"This tool helps us to monitor the job related to SAP modules."
"Redwood is more flexible and we can schedule the tasks based on different time zones."
"It saves us a lot of time and money by doing jobs automatically."
"This program works with every browser."
"There won't be a memory outage issue, as it uses its own server/ECC memory only."
"Redwood manages all complex job workflow processes."
"Installing and configuring Redwood agents are easy, and scheduling jobs on Redwood helps in triggering the batches as per business requirements."
"We can achieve anything that anything that we would like to do. In SAP, it's not generally possible with just with SAP. So we have solution manager as an option, but run by job."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the reliability of the agents, because we need them accessible and we need to run stuff. The agent technology and compatibility are top-notch."
"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."
"I like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"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 support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"We need the ability to pull data into an Excel format."
"The solution should have more focus on security standards."
"The job log has a size limit."
"We need the automatic creation of incidents for failed jobs."
"Having a graphical user interface for the dashboard would be great."
"The dashboard provided can be made more visually appealing and could include more critical data that would help associates in one glance get the required information."
"The documentation for this product is limited, which can be improved in the future."
"The product can improve customer service."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"I have a request regarding our agent on the mainframe. It may time out when communicating to the Universal Controller, when the mainframe is extremely busy. That can cause a task which is running at that time to not see the results of the job that ran on the mainframe. It happens sporadically during times of really busy CPU usage. We're expecting that enhancement from them in the fourth quarter."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"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."
Redwood RunMyJobs is ranked 3rd in Workload Automation with 30 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. Redwood RunMyJobs is rated 9.6, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Redwood RunMyJobs writes "Simple to use, increases CPU speed, and reduces the cost of machine 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". Redwood RunMyJobs is most compared with Control-M, Tidal by Redwood, AutoSys Workload Automation, Automic Workload Automation and Automic Automation Intelligence, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, IBM Workload Automation and VisualCron. See our Redwood RunMyJobs 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.