Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
IBM Workload Automation Logo

Top 10 IBM Workload Automation Alternatives

Vendor: IBM
4.0 out of 5
1,616 followers
Post review

Top IBM Workload Automation Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to IBM Workload Automation based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, and Automic Automation. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

IBM Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with IBM, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Control-M
4.4 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Control-M
4.4 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation excels in robust scheduling and flexibility, ideal for adaptable operations, while Control-M offers advanced integration and customization, making it suitable for complex needs. In comparison, Control-M's streamlined deployment contrasts with IBM's comprehensive support, catering to diverse organizational priorities.
Download Control-M vs. IBM Workload Automation Report
IBM Workload Automation's setup cost is lower compared to Control-M, which requires a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation's setup cost is lower compared to Control-M, which requires a higher initial investment.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
AutoSys Workload Automation
4.2 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation offers extensive integration and scalability suitable for complex environments. In comparison, AutoSys Workload Automation excels in scheduling and error handling, providing reliable long-term automation. IBM's ease of deployment contrasts with AutoSys's cost-effectiveness and technical support advantages.
Download AutoSys Workload Automation vs. IBM Workload Automation Report
IBM Workload Automation incurs lower setup costs, providing a cost-effective solution, while AutoSys Workload Automation may involve higher initial expenses, resulting in a more robust enterprise-oriented setup.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation incurs lower setup costs, providing a cost-effective solution, while AutoSys Workload Automation may involve higher initial expenses, resulting in a more robust enterprise-oriented setup.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Automic Automation
4.2 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Automic Automation
4.2 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation is chosen for its straightforward deployment and reliability, ideal for enterprises seeking predictable outcomes. In comparison, Automic Automation stands out with advanced customization capabilities, appealing to those prioritizing flexibility and extensive feature sets.
Download Automic Automation vs. IBM Workload Automation Report
IBM Workload Automation often incurs higher setup costs, while Automic Automation generally offers more affordable initial setup pricing.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation often incurs higher setup costs, while Automic Automation generally offers more affordable initial setup pricing.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Tidal by Redwood
4.5 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Tidal by Redwood
4.5 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation is preferred for scalability and robust features, appealing to those seeking extensive capabilities. In comparison, Tidal by Redwood attracts businesses with its intuitive navigation, swift deployment, and cost-effective setup, ideal for those prioritizing ease-of-use and quick returns on investment.
Download IBM Workload Automation vs. Tidal by Redwood Report
IBM Workload Automation offers competitive setup costs with flexible pricing, whereas Tidal by Redwood generally features higher initial expenses, indicating significant cost differences between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation offers competitive setup costs with flexible pricing, whereas Tidal by Redwood generally features higher initial expenses, indicating significant cost differences between the two solutions.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Stonebranch
4.4 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Stonebranch
4.4 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation offers extensive features for large enterprises with complex needs. In comparison, Stonebranch excels in flexibility and ease of integration, appealing to organizations valuing agility. A tech buyer might choose IBM for comprehensive features or Stonebranch for cost-effective customization.
Download IBM Workload Automation vs. Stonebranch Report
IBM Workload Automation has a moderate setup cost, offering strategic value, while Stonebranch is more affordable, appealing to cost-conscious organizations.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation has a moderate setup cost, offering strategic value, while Stonebranch is more affordable, appealing to cost-conscious organizations.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Redwood RunMyJobs
4.8 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Redwood RunMyJobs
4.8 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation offers comprehensive integration and strong support, appealing to those needing extensive application automation. In comparison, Redwood RunMyJobs emphasizes modern technology with cloud-native design and flexibility, ideal for users prioritizing a streamlined deployment process and quick ROI.
Download IBM Workload Automation vs. Redwood RunMyJobs Report
IBM Workload Automation involves higher setup costs, while Redwood RunMyJobs offers a more affordable initial setup, highlighting their pricing strategy differences.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation involves higher setup costs, while Redwood RunMyJobs offers a more affordable initial setup, highlighting their pricing strategy differences.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
ActiveBatch by Redwood
4.6 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation appeals to cost-conscious buyers with competitive pricing and customer support. In comparison, ActiveBatch by Redwood justifies higher costs with advanced features and minimal coding, making it attractive to businesses seeking flexibility and diverse integration options.
Download ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. IBM Workload Automation Report
IBM Workload Automation involves lower setup costs while ActiveBatch by Redwood presents a higher initial cost, highlighting a significant pricing difference.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation involves lower setup costs while ActiveBatch by Redwood presents a higher initial cost, highlighting a significant pricing difference.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Rocket Zena
4.3 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Rocket Zena
4.3 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation appeals to businesses seeking affordability, scalability, and strong support, thanks to straightforward deployment and integration. In comparison, Rocket Zena attracts those valuing advanced customization and automation features, offering a modular approach that suits complex workflows despite higher upfront costs.
Download IBM Workload Automation vs. Rocket Zena Report
IBM Workload Automation requires a higher initial setup cost compared to Rocket Zena, which offers a more budget-friendly implementation option.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation requires a higher initial setup cost compared to Rocket Zena, which offers a more budget-friendly implementation option.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
OpCon
4.6 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation Logo
OpCon
4.6 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation excels in scalability and integration, appealing to large enterprises with its effective support model. In comparison, OpCon offers advanced automation and cross-platform flexibility, making it attractive for businesses seeking customizable, versatile solutions with lower initial costs and personalized service.
Download IBM Workload Automation vs. OpCon Report
IBM Workload Automation's setup costs are typically higher, reflecting its comprehensive feature set, whereas OpCon offers a more budget-friendly setup option, appealing to organizations seeking efficient cost management. The difference highlights IBM's focus on complexity and OpCon's a...
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation's setup costs are typically higher, reflecting its comprehensive feature set, whereas OpCon offers a more budget-friendly setup option, appealing to organizations seeking efficient cost management. The difference highlights IBM's focus on complexity and OpCon's a...
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
ESP Workload Automation Intelligence
4.0 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation offers cost-effective pricing and excellent support for seamless platform integration, appealing to businesses seeking quick deployment. In comparison, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence provides robust analytics and predictive insights, ensuring strategic long-term investment despite its higher upfront cost.
IBM Workload Automation has higher setup costs compared to ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, impacting initial budgeting decisions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation has higher setup costs compared to ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, impacting initial budgeting decisions.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Fortra's JAMS
4.5 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Fortra's JAMS
4.5 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation offers scalability and integration with IBM ecosystems, attracting large enterprises needing comprehensive solutions. In comparison, Fortra's JAMS excels in easy integration across diverse platforms, appealing to organizations valuing flexibility and rapid deployment in various IT environments.
Download Fortra's JAMS vs. IBM Workload Automation Report
IBM Workload Automation has a higher upfront setup cost, while Fortra's JAMS offers a more cost-effective setup option.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation has a higher upfront setup cost, while Fortra's JAMS offers a more cost-effective setup option.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence
1 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation attracts buyers with its advanced scheduling and integration capabilities across platforms. In comparison, CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence focuses on predictive analytics for efficient resource management, appealing to those valuing analytics-driven optimization and intelligent workload adaptation despite higher initial costs.
IBM Workload Automation has a lower initial setup cost, while CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence requires a higher investment to get started.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation has a lower initial setup cost, while CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence requires a higher investment to get started.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
HCL Workload Automation
4.0 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation attracts buyers with its reliability and competitive pricing, ideal for budget-conscious organizations. In comparison, HCL Workload Automation offers a diverse feature set and superior long-term gains, appealing to those prioritizing adaptability and comprehensive support despite higher initial costs.
IBM Workload Automation typically incurs a higher setup cost compared to HCL Workload Automation, which tends to offer a more economical initial investment. Businesses should consider this cost difference when evaluating these workload automation solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation typically incurs a higher setup cost compared to HCL Workload Automation, which tends to offer a more economical initial investment. Businesses should consider this cost difference when evaluating these workload automation solutions.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Dollar Universe Workload Automation
3.3 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation excels with advanced workflow orchestration and integration capabilities across environments. In comparison, Dollar Universe Workload Automation offers streamlined scheduling and superior monitoring. IBM appeals to enterprises seeking comprehensive features, while Dollar Universe attracts businesses valuing quick implementation and competitive pricing.
Download Dollar Universe Workload Automation vs. IBM Workload Automation Report
IBM Workload Automation features higher setup costs while Dollar Universe Workload Automation offers a more cost-effective initial setup, providing a more budget-friendly option for businesses.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation features higher setup costs while Dollar Universe Workload Automation offers a more cost-effective initial setup, providing a more budget-friendly option for businesses.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
ESP dSeries Workload Automation
1 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation provides robust job scheduling and competitive pricing, appealing to medium-sized businesses. In comparison, ESP dSeries Workload Automation emphasizes integration and scalability, offering advanced features for large enterprises despite higher costs. Each has unique advantages influencing buyer decisions.
IBM Workload Automation typically requires a lower initial setup cost compared to ESP dSeries Workload Automation, which suggests a higher entry point.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation typically requires a lower initial setup cost compared to ESP dSeries Workload Automation, which suggests a higher entry point.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Axway Automator
3.0 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Axway Automator
3.0 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation excels in scalability and integration, appealing to large enterprises. In comparison, Axway Automator attracts small to mid-sized businesses with ease of deployment and cost-effectiveness. Tech buyers choose based on specific needs—IBM for power, Axway for simplicity.
IBM Workload Automation offers flexible setup costs, while Axway Automator provides a more predictable pricing structure.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation offers flexible setup costs, while Axway Automator provides a more predictable pricing structure.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager
5.0 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation excels in scalability and flexible scheduling, ideal for complex environments. In comparison, BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager focuses on mainframe efficiency and resource optimization, making it attractive for enterprises seeking cost-effective operations and improved mainframe performance.
IBM Workload Automation often entails higher setup costs, while BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager typically offers a more cost-effective setup option.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation often entails higher setup costs, while BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager typically offers a more cost-effective setup option.

Related categories

Workload Automation
Process Automation
Managed File Transfer (MFT)