We performed a comparison between AppWorx Workload Automation and Tidal Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AppWorx Workload Automation is praised for its ease of use and reliable performance. Tidal Automation is highly regarded for its efficient job scheduler, versatility in job execution, and seamless integration with other systems.
AppWorx Workload Automation can improve by enhancing its API integration and scalability. Tidal Automation has opportunities for improvement in its graphical user interface, pricing model, user interface, migration process, and job dependency management.
Service and Support: Users appreciate the technical support provided by AppWorx and the responsiveness and knowledge of Tidal Automation's support team. However, some users mention that lower-priority items can sometimes be overlooked by Tidal Automation.
Ease of Deployment: AppWorx Workload Automation's initial setup is time-consuming and challenging, particularly for those who are new to the system. It can take several months to complete. Tidal Automation offers a much simpler setup process. It only requires a few servers and a database, and the deployment process can be finished in approximately three weeks.
Pricing: AppWorx Workload Automation has a costly setup, dependent on the number of systems used. Tidal Automation has a fair and predictable pricing structure, with transparent licensing. Some users mention the requirement for extra adapters to fulfill specific job needs.
ROI: Customers have reported positive outcomes with Tidal Automation, including cost savings, increased efficiency, reduced manual work, improved risk management, and seamless integration. AppWorx does not provide specific information regarding ROI.
Comparison Results: Tidal Automation is preferred over AppWorx Workload Automation. Users appreciate Tidal Automation for its easy setup, manageable maintenance, and user-friendly interface. It offers a job scheduler, real-time monitoring, and reporting capabilities, along with the ability to automate complex workflows. Users also find its pricing fair and predictable, experience a positive return on investment, and highly value its customer service and support.
"The most valuable features of AppWorx Workload Automation are simplicity and reliability. Additionally, they recently transformed the UI which is better."
"The interface is good."
"The automated solution is the most valuable piece. Otherwise, we would have to be doing everything manually on every server."
"The solution is very user friendly so anyone can use it."
"It is an object-based approach to task and process design in conjunction with conditional logic and event-based scheduling actions, which enables a build once/use often design methodology to be employed."
"Scheduling is a good feature."
"It is really a robust product."
"It has improved my organization through automation of back office and infrastructure procedures, and by integrating and orchestrating key business applications spanning multiple technology stacks."
"We use the solution for cross-platform, cross-application workloads. That's the biggest use for us and that's the biggest advantage."
"It's easy to use and easy to administer, and it's very flexible."
"The feature that I find to be valuable, as I'm working with other folks, is the ability to cross-schedule across platforms, and the flexibility that comes with that."
"Thinking of all the people involved in checking jobs on a daily basis, manually running jobs or auditing them through standalone tools, and trying to connect them. We have saved hundreds of hours weekly, which is substantial."
"We use the solution for cross-platform, cross-application workloads. The solution’s ability to manage and monitor these workloads is very easy and accurate. We have file dependencies for running jobs. The job does not start until a file exists on a completely different server, then where the job will run. So, it is cross systems."
"Tidal integrates with other third-party systems, which makes it easy to connect and exchange data."
"The job dependency is something that you cannot have in a regular, simple cron job or simple scheduler dependency. The event-driven jobs are core for us, as we really need that. Therefore, we really need Tidal with its ability to run thousands of jobs per day."
"We have to run about 12,000 jobs every day and the majority of them need to be launched from our ERP, JD Edwards. The native compatibility of the Tidal platform with JD Edwards dovetails with our greatest need. It's directly connected to the heart of our IT system. We couldn't work without it."
"It is not really scaling per say because they are not putting much into it. They are trying to push their new product."
"The scalability could improve."
"It has been a deprecated product, because it is so old. There has been a couple of new solutions that are a little more advanced."
"It is difficult to integrate with the Active Directory (AD)."
"We are looking for additional features that would allow us to call APIs and integrate the product with other tools more effectively."
"The graphical interface is pretty cool but not the best so it could use some improvement."
"Reporting, forecasting and intelligence could be improved."
"As a general process automation and integration tool, it has been superseded by other offerings, notably the Workload Automation suite."
"Tidal Automation could be further integrated with other systems used in the operation of tidal energy systems, such as weather forecasting tools, energy management systems, or asset management software."
"The job failure alerts can be updated with more details for better troubleshooting."
"For the most part, the drill-down and the logging are really good. But if we take an Informatica job, for example: We have the ability, and the operators have the ability, to actually drill down and see, at a session level, where the failure is. There is, unfortunately, no way to extract that into an actual output email or failure email. It's not that that information is not available, but extracting it into an email would be a nice-to-have."
"The GUI, the graphical user interface, gets a little bit busy."
"The UI might have the potential to provide a more polished and user-centric encounter, promoting seamless engagements and simplifying the navigation process for individuals interacting with the software."
"With the client, we have had certain issues. The user interface for Tidal is a little slow. A lot of people would love this tool if they had a faster user interface. The drill-down functionality should be much quicker than what it is pulling out now. If I fill out some data, then it takes awhile to get that data back onto the screen. It's not as fast as we were expecting."
"The current user interface of Tidal Software is functional. However, it can be improved to make it more intuitive and user-friendly."
"I would like more involvement with the cloud."
AppWorx Workload Automation is ranked 17th in Workload Automation with 7 reviews while Tidal by Redwood is ranked 2nd in Workload Automation with 37 reviews. AppWorx Workload Automation is rated 8.0, while Tidal by Redwood is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of AppWorx Workload Automation writes "The scheduling tool and finance module are valuable features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tidal by Redwood writes "Great visibility with a single pane of glass and a low learning curve". AppWorx Workload Automation is most compared with Automic Workload Automation, Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation and Automic Automation Intelligence, whereas Tidal by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs and ActiveBatch by Redwood. See our AppWorx Workload Automation vs. Tidal by Redwood 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.