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
1,619 followers
Start 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 appeals to budget-conscious buyers with its competitive pricing and robust support. In comparison, Control-M offers superior features with enhanced real-time monitoring and integration, making it ideal for enterprises seeking extensive capabilities and are willing to invest more for long-term benefits.
Download Control-M vs. IBM Workload Automation Report
IBM Workload Automation typically has a lower initial setup cost, while Control-M may involve a more substantial setup investment, reflecting its extensive feature set.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation typically has a lower initial setup cost, while Control-M may involve a more substantial setup investment, reflecting its extensive feature set.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
AutoSys Workload Automation
4.2 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation offers cost-effective solutions with flexible support and easy deployment, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. In comparison, AutoSys Workload Automation, despite steeper costs, attracts those valuing sophisticated automation, comprehensive capabilities, and the ability to handle complex environments efficiently.
Download AutoSys Workload Automation vs. IBM Workload Automation Report
IBM Workload Automation has a lower setup cost compared to AutoSys Workload Automation, highlighting a cost-effective edge in initial expenditure.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation has a lower setup cost compared to AutoSys Workload Automation, highlighting a cost-effective edge in initial expenditure.
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 excels in complex scheduling with cross-platform integration, favoring easy deployment and affordable setup costs. In comparison, Automic Automation offers comprehensive process automation and scalability, appealing to those valuing advanced analytics despite higher initial costs. Each provides strong customer support.
Download Automic Automation vs. IBM Workload Automation Report
IBM Workload Automation incurs a higher initial setup cost compared to Automic Automation, which offers a more budget-friendly initial expenditure.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation incurs a higher initial setup cost compared to Automic Automation, which offers a more budget-friendly initial expenditure.
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 provides advanced job scheduling suited for complex environments, emphasizing robust enterprise-level features. In comparison, Redwood RunMyJobs offers flexible cloud-based automation, appealing with its user-friendly design. A tech buyer might choose IBM for depth or Redwood for agility.
Download IBM Workload Automation vs. Redwood RunMyJobs Report
IBM Workload Automation offers flexible setup costs, while Redwood RunMyJobs provides a streamlined, lower-cost setup. These differences highlight varied pricing approaches between the two solutions in terms of initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation offers flexible setup costs, while Redwood RunMyJobs provides a streamlined, lower-cost setup. These differences highlight varied pricing approaches between the two solutions in terms of initial investment.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Stonebranch
4.4 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Stonebranch
4.4 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation impresses with robust scheduling and integration across platforms, making it ideal for cost-conscious enterprises. In comparison, Stonebranch offers superior automation capabilities and flexible deployment, catering to complex needs, providing a significant long-term ROI despite higher initial costs.
Download IBM Workload Automation vs. Stonebranch Report
IBM Workload Automation has a higher setup cost compared to Stonebranch, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment requirements between the two automation solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation has a higher setup cost compared to Stonebranch, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment requirements between the two automation solutions.
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 offers robust features and scalability ideal for complex enterprise needs. In comparison, Tidal by Redwood focuses on usability and responsive support, making it attractive for those who value ease of deployment and faster ROI.
Download IBM Workload Automation vs. Tidal by Redwood Report
IBM Workload Automation requires a higher initial setup cost than Tidal by Redwood, which is more affordable and easier to implement, providing a budget-friendly entry point for users.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation requires a higher initial setup cost than Tidal by Redwood, which is more affordable and easier to implement, providing a budget-friendly entry point for users.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
ActiveBatch by Redwood
4.6 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation offers advanced scheduling and workload balancing across platforms. In comparison, ActiveBatch by Redwood enhances adaptability with extensive integration options and a comprehensive job library. In contrast, ActiveBatch features easier deployment and responsive support, differentiating from IBM's complex setup.
Download ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. IBM Workload Automation Report
IBM Workload Automation typically has higher setup costs due to its extensive feature set, while ActiveBatch by Redwood offers a more cost-effective setup option, appealing to budget-conscious organizations.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation typically has higher setup costs due to its extensive feature set, while ActiveBatch by Redwood offers a more cost-effective setup option, appealing to budget-conscious organizations.
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 offers extensive integration and scheduling for complex environments, appealing for its orchestration abilities. In comparison, Rocket Zena emphasizes simplicity and efficiency, ideal for businesses with straightforward needs, favoring rapid deployment and reduced complexity.
Download IBM Workload Automation vs. Rocket Zena Report
IBM Workload Automation incurs a higher setup cost compared to Rocket Zena, making Rocket Zena an appealing option for budget-conscious setups.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation incurs a higher setup cost compared to Rocket Zena, making Rocket Zena an appealing option for budget-conscious setups.
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 comprehensive feature sets and customization for complex environments. In comparison, OpCon emphasizes ease of use with simpler deployment. Tech buyers may prefer IBM for its flexibility and capabilities, while OpCon is favored for quick setup and cost efficiency.
Download IBM Workload Automation vs. OpCon Report
IBM Workload Automation typically involves higher setup costs compared to OpCon, making OpCon a more budget-friendly option for initial implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation typically involves higher setup costs compared to OpCon, making OpCon a more budget-friendly option for initial implementation.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
ESP Workload Automation Intelligence
4.0 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation excels in deployment and customer service with lower setup costs and comprehensive scheduling. In comparison, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence provides advanced predictive analytics for resource allocation and offers substantial long-term value justifying its higher pricing.
IBM Workload Automation has a significant setup cost, while ESP Workload Automation Intelligence offers a more affordable initial setup, highlighting a key cost difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation has a significant setup cost, while ESP Workload Automation Intelligence offers a more affordable initial setup, highlighting a key cost difference between the two solutions.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
JAMS
4.4 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation Logo
JAMS
4.4 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation excels with integration capabilities and competitive pricing, appealing to those needing scalable solutions. In comparison, JAMS offers advanced scheduling and cross-platform support, ideal for buyers seeking extensive features and high ROI.
Download IBM Workload Automation vs. JAMS Report
IBM Workload Automation requires a significant setup cost, while JAMS offers a more budget-friendly initial setup. This highlights a notable difference in cost structure between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation requires a significant setup cost, while JAMS offers a more budget-friendly initial setup. This highlights a notable difference in cost structure between the two solutions.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence
1 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation offers comprehensive features for flexible job scheduling and integration in complex environments. In comparison, CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence provides strong predictive analytics for potential challenges. IBM's easy deployment contrasts with CA 7's complex setup but superior customer support.
IBM Workload Automation's setup cost is competitive, whereas CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence offers a more straightforward pricing structure.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation's setup cost is competitive, whereas CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence offers a more straightforward pricing structure.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
HCL Workload Automation
4.0 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation excels in integration and flexibility, attracting buyers interested in diverse platform compatibility. In comparison, HCL Workload Automation appeals with advanced scheduling and analytics, ideal for those emphasizing comprehensive process efficiency and long-term ROI benefits, despite possibly higher initial costs.
IBM Workload Automation features a straightforward setup process aimed at reducing initial costs, while HCL Workload Automation's setup involves higher costs but offers customizable deployment options.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation features a straightforward setup process aimed at reducing initial costs, while HCL Workload Automation's setup involves higher costs but offers customizable deployment options.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
Dollar Universe Workload Automation
3.3 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation provides robust scheduling and security, attracting enterprises needing comprehensive integration. In comparison, Dollar Universe excels with complex job dependencies and real-time monitoring, appealing to budget-conscious buyers seeking lower initial costs and quicker ROI. IBM offers broader support, whereas Dollar Universe focuses on rapid deployment.
Download Dollar Universe Workload Automation vs. IBM Workload Automation Report
IBM Workload Automation setup costs are generally more affordable compared to Dollar Universe Workload Automation, which tends to have a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation setup costs are generally more affordable compared to Dollar Universe Workload Automation, which tends to have a higher initial investment.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
ESP dSeries Workload Automation
1 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation excels in comprehensive automation with advanced scheduling and integration features. In comparison, ESP dSeries is praised for reliability and ease of deployment in high-volume environments. IBM's diverse integration and flexible deployment options appeal to businesses seeking robust automation solutions.
IBM Workload Automation features a higher setup cost, while ESP dSeries Workload Automation offers more budget-friendly implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation features a higher setup cost, while ESP dSeries Workload Automation offers more budget-friendly implementation.
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 is favored for its comprehensive scheduling in hybrid environments. In comparison, Axway Automator's adaptable architecture suits dynamic needs. A tech buyer might choose IBM for its reliability or Axway for its rapid ROI and customizable deployment.
IBM Workload Automation typically involves higher setup costs compared to Axway Automator. Axway Automator is noted for its relatively low initial expenses, making it an affordable choice for businesses with tight budgets.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation typically involves higher setup costs compared to Axway Automator. Axway Automator is noted for its relatively low initial expenses, making it an affordable choice for businesses with tight budgets.
IBM Workload Automation Logo
IBM Workload Automation Logo
BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager
5.0 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation provides flexibility for scheduling and resource management across diverse environments. In comparison, BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager enhances mainframe batch efficiency with advanced tools. IBM caters to varied infrastructure needs, while BMC focuses on specialized mainframe integration.
IBM Workload Automation has a higher initial setup cost, while BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager offers a more budget-friendly setup fee.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation has a higher initial setup cost, while BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager offers a more budget-friendly setup fee.

Related categories

Workload Automation
Process Automation
Managed File Transfer (MFT)