Control-M offers robust customer support, comprehensive scheduling, and excellent deployment services. In comparison, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence excels in predictive analytics, advanced automation features, and competitive pricing. A tech buyer might choose Control-M for reliability and long-term value, while ESP offers modern features.
IBM Workload Automation excels in pricing, support, integration capabilities, and scalability, making it ideal for budget-conscious buyers. In comparison, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence is favored for advanced reporting tools, predictive analytics, and smoother deployment, justifying its higher cost for feature-prioritizing buyers.
To my knowledge, IWA is the only WLA product that will provide "parallel tracking" capability to assist in upgrading from one platform to IWA.
It is about one-third of the cost of a controller.
To my knowledge, IWA is the only WLA product that will provide "parallel tracking" capability to assist in upgrading from one platform to IWA.
It is about one-third of the cost of a controller.
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.
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.
ActiveBatch by Redwood is used for data processing, automation, job scheduling, file transfers, server monitoring, and platform integration. It supports calculations, reporting, updates, and IT operations. Users benefit from centralized management and real-time monitoring. Improvements needed include better documentation, cloud support, UI, triggers, dashboards, reporting, and machine learning features.
The price was fairly in line with other automation tools. I don't think it's exorbitantly expensive, relatively speaking.
It allows for lower operational overhead.
The price was fairly in line with other automation tools. I don't think it's exorbitantly expensive, relatively speaking.
It allows for lower operational overhead.
