We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch Workload Automation and AutoSys Workload Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is known for its versatility and ease of use, as well as its prebuilt jobs and real-time monitoring. It also has a strong alerting mechanism and excels in workload distribution and integration capabilities.AutoSys Workload Automation is highly acclaimed for its scalability and ease of use, as well as its speed and availability. It is particularly valued for job scheduling and orchestrating tasks.
ActiveBatch users would like to see enhancements in licensing, user interface, trigger reliability, monitoring dashboard, documentation, support services, cloud capabilities, and pricing. AutoSys users desire integration with cloud services, better reporting and monitoring capabilities, improved workflow management, and enhanced workload window management.
Service and Support: Users have praised ActiveBatch for its helpful and reliable technical support, which includes workarounds, a clear knowledge base, and APIs. AutoSys receives high praise for its very good, helpful, and responsive support. Users see the support team for both products as sufficient and capable, with a standardized approach and a mature product.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for ActiveBatch Workload Automation is uncomplicated, although there could be improved documentation for file importing. However, configuring it on varied environments like Windows and Linux can be challenging. AutoSys Workload Automation setup is described as effortless, direct, and fairly rapid, taking around 10 minutes or less with minimal clicks. For more intricate setups, a complete implementation may require a month or two.
Pricing: ActiveBatch Workload Automation has an uncomplicated and quick setup process, with users finding the pricing fair and competitive. AutoSys Workload Automation offers different pricing and licensing choices, with some users perceiving it as costly.
ROI: Users have praised ActiveBatch Workload Automation for its positive financial impact, such as a notable rise in net revenue. AutoSys Workload Automation provides various advantages like heightened productivity, enhanced efficiency, cost savings, improved visibility and control, and decreased downtime.
Comparison Results: ActiveBatch Workload Automation is the preferred choice when compared to AutoSys Workload Automation. Users appreciate ActiveBatch's simplicity in setup and implementation, its versatility, ease of use, and extensive library of prebuilt job steps. They also value its real-time monitoring and scalability.
"ActiveBatch provides summary reports and logs for further analysis and improvements in monitoring servers, which is very handy."
"The automation feature is a very valuable feature as the associates do not have to worry about performing repetitive tasks (i.e. endpoint security scans on a daily basis) that would take several hours to complete on a daily basis."
"The nice thing about ActiveBatch is once we have created a specific job that can be easily be replicated to another job, then minimal changes will have to be made. This makes things nice. Reduction of coding is substantial in a lot of cases. The replication of one job to another is just doing a few minor tweaks and rolling it into production. This decreases our development costs substantially."
"Using this tool, if there are any huge failures, we immediately get an email notification, and the proper team will be informed, at which time they can act accordingly."
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"ActiveBatch's Self-Service Portal allows our business units to run and monitor their own workloads. They can simply run and review the logs, but they can't modify them. It increases their productivity because they are able to take care of things on their own. It saves us time from having to rerun the scripts, because the business units can just go ahead and log in and and rerun it themselves."
"Approximately ~20 hours of manual effort have been reduced to ~5 hours with the help of ActiveBatch."
"ActiveBatch can automate predictable, repeatable processes very well. There is no real trick to what ActiveBatch does. ActiveBatch does exactly what you would expect a scheduling piece of software to do. It does it in a timely manner and does it with very little outside interference and fanfare. It runs when it is supposed to, and I don't have to jump through a bunch of hoops to double check it."
"The ability to create calendars, calendering for batch jobs to run on a scheduled frequency."
"This solution has made my clients' workplaces a lot less labor-intensive."
"It has helped to simplify cross-dependency between MVS and Open systems jobs."
"The flexibility in solving job scheduling challenges allows us to successfully integrate an acquired business’ fiscal close with our own, even though there is a lot of variance as to when they run in the calendar month."
"AutoSys Workload Automation is a stable solution."
"Easy configuration and integration with SAP."
"It gives us flexibility when doing releases. We can make changes for one day in a PDS member, since we stage our jobs by date, and the next day the normal job definitions are run."
"The CA workload agent has gotten much better. For our organization it's important for us to communicate in a secure fashion between the host and the other platforms, and we are able to do that with our CA product"
"They should offer pricing that is more affordable."
"Between version 10 and version 12 there was a change. In version 10, they had each object in its own folder. But on the back end, they saw it at the root level. So when we moved over to version 12, everything was in the same area mixed together. It was incredibly difficult and we actually had to create our own folders and move those objects—like schedules, jobs, user accounts—and manually put those into folders, whereas the previous version already had it."
"There is this back and forth, where ActiveBatch says, "Your Oracle people should be dealing with this," and Oracle people say, "No, we don't know anything about ActiveBatch." Then, it all falls back on me as to what happens. Nobody is taking responsibility. This is the biggest failing for ActiveBatch."
"I can't get the cleaning up of logs to work consistently. Right now, we are not setup correctly, and maybe it is something that I have not effectively communicated to them."
"ActiveBatch is a little complex."
"They could provide an easier installation guide or technical support to the organizations during the installation process."
"It could be easier to provide dashboards on how many jobs are running at the same time; more monitoring."
"They have some crucial design flaws within the console that still need to be worked out because it is not working exactly how we hoped to see it, e.g., just some minor things where when you hit the save button, then all of a sudden all your job's library items collapse. Then, in order to continue on with your testing, you have to open those back up. I have taken that to them, and they are like, "Yep. We know about it. We know we have some enhancements that need to be taken care of. We have more developers now." They are working towards taking the minor things that annoy us, resolving them, and getting them fixed."
"I would like to see two-factor authentication, since you see a lot of companies in the news for security breaches. That is a really big thing for us."
"Ease of implementation for upgrades."
"Reduce the number of operational files. This would make the job of a system programmer supporting ESP easier."
"The solution does not have a friendly subscription model because it forces users to take a five-year subscription simultaneously, charging millions of dollars."
"Some of the reports are either a bit hard to understand or don’t give you what you might expect to see."
"Needs better documentation with fully explained examples for some of the job types."
"I am not sure whether it is our limitation or a tool limitation because we haven't yet explored it, but whenever we look for different types of reporting, we have some limitations in getting those. It could be because of the way we have set it up internally in our enterprise, but it would be helpful if we can customize the reporting features and some of the alerts that can go out. When we connect enterprise systems, each one looks for a different use case, and if we can get different types of reporting, it will be helpful."
"An area for improvement in AutoSys Workload Automation is that it lacks advanced features or advanced built-in functionalities found in competitors, for example, an advanced workflow feature. Even the handling or notification from AutoSys Workload Automation isn't the best in the industry. Other products have very good workflow-related functionalities such as ActiveBatch that's missing in AutoSys Workload Automation, so I wish the tool had those features."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 35 reviews while AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs, VisualCron and IBM Workload Automation, whereas AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Automic Workload Automation and Dollar Universe Workload Automation. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. AutoSys Workload Automation 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.
