We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch by Redwood and Camunda based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Process Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"Since we are no longer waiting for an operator to see that a job is finished, we have changed our daily cycle from running in eight hours down to about five. We had a third shift-operator retire and that position was never refilled."
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"We use the main job-scheduling feature. It's the only thing we use in the tool. That's the reason we are using the tool: to reduce costs by replacing manual tasks with automated tasks and to perform regular, repetitive tasks in a more reliable way."
"Since I started using this product, I have been able to easily track everything as it mainly monitors, alerts, and looks after all the services - even across platform scheduling - which has helped me immensely."
"Managing the workload and monitoring the tasks were very difficult with manual interventions. Now, by using ActiveBatch, the process is automated and it runs tasks on a scheduled basis."
"One of the most valuable features is the job templates. If we need to create an FTP job, we just drag over the FTP template and fill out the requirements using the variables that ActiveBatch uses. And that makes it reusable. We can create a job once but use it for many different clients."
"What ActiveBatch allows you to do is develop a more efficient process. It gave me visibility into all my jobs so I could choose which jobs to run in parallel. This is much easier than when I have to try to do it through cron for Windows XP, where you really can't do things in parallel and know what is going on."
"It is an absolutely stable solution."
"Camunda is a scalable product."
"We have a lot of users, almost 1,800, and we needed something affordable, stable and something that could be used by a large financial company. This solution truly fit the bill."
"The most valuable features are the management of internal processes, the ability to execute from design and the model for internal processes, the ability to make processes visible, and the ability to have information about the current state of each instance."
"The most valuable features are that it's lightweight, can be embedded in existing Java code, and keeps track of the workflow state and the instances that we need."
"Provides an easy way to integrate with the architectural environment."
"The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
"Being able to use a Java-based solution makes the product flexible."
"ActiveBatch UI could use a little more help, and video tutorials would be greatly appreciated for user guides."
"Providing some detailed training materials could be very helpful for new users who have very limited technical information about the tool."
"There are some issues with this version and finding the jobs that it ran. If you're looking at 1,000 different jobs, it shows based on the execution time, not necessarily the run time. So, if there was a constraint waiting, you may be looking for it in the wrong time frame. Plus, with thousands of jobs showing up and the way it pages output jobs, sometimes you end up with multiple pages on the screen, then you have to go through to find the specific job you're looking for. On the opposite side, you can limit the daily activity screen to show only jobs that failed or jobs currently running, which will shrink that back down. However, we have operators who are looking at the whole nightly cycle to make sure everything is there and make sure nothing got blocked or was waiting. Sometimes, they have a hard time finding every item within the list."
"A nice thing to have would be the ability to comfortably pass variables from one job to another. That was one of the things that I found difficult."
"A cloud option is not provided as a free feature, making it a costly solution for smaller organizations."
"Except for the GUI, everything looks good."
"As more organizations are moving towards a cloud-based infrastructure, ActiveBatch could incorporate more capabilities that support popular cloud platforms, such as AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud."
"I have faced struggles to understand, set up the tool, and implement it in my early days as a new user."
"I would say that Camunda should actually focus on small cases as well. There's a lot of space out there, for small businesses. If they can, they should cater to them."
"I would like to see better pricing."
"The documentation could use improvement."
"I have faced problems in bringing up the Cockpit in terms of GUI processes. I think that there is room for improvement in those areas."
"It lacks some preset features and configurations which would make it more plug-and-play for customers."
"The support definitely can be improved. Apart from that, the language should be extendable to other platforms. If I want to write, I'll run a different platform, like Python code on top of it, or COBOL code on top of it, and it should support those languages."
"When addressing a complex and extensive process, the domain it belongs to, be it banking, healthcare, or HR, requires widespread access."
"The product's initial setup phase is difficult for beginners."
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 7th in Process Automation with 35 reviews while Camunda is ranked 1st in Process Automation with 71 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while Camunda is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, Redwood RunMyJobs and IBM Workload Automation, whereas Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Camunda report.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Process 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.