We performed a comparison between AutoSys Workload Automation and BMC TrueSight Server Automation based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC, Tidal Software by Redwood, Redwood Software and others in Workload Automation."The initial setup is easy."
"The actual scheduling of our jobs has helped us tremendously. Before it was all done manually, and we've totally automated the whole functionality, so there's no longer a case where somebody didn't run something."
"This solution enables us to improve our daily processing times. We can do everything faster than before we used this solution."
"We don't have to manually run things anymore. We can have the work that a team of 50 people would do, all inside of one platform."
"To me, what's most valuable in AutoSys Workload Automation is its robustness and quickness. The tool can trigger jobs within a few milliseconds, and it can handle large volumes of jobs."
"Automation of patch process."
"It gives a real-time view of all the batch processing that we have. Monitoring-wise, it is really good."
"The solution has been stable."
"BMC Bladelogic Automation can be used across many OS platforms, providing us flexibility for deployments."
"Scalability is good."
"With BMC, we even configured applications, like IE or things that were Java-related. When we scheduled the jobs, it worked fine. It saved us time and there was no need for resources to monitor them."
"Server Automation's best feature is automated patching. It also helps us automate compliance and report generation. We can even integrate TrueSight Server Automation with a vulnerability management solution to remedy vulnerabilities by applying patches, deploying scripts, or changing registry entries."
"BladeLogic lets users view the filesystem with minimal authorization to the server."
"Compliance is also huge... By tying it to Atrium Orchestrator, our workflow tool, we'll be able to have a closed loop where we identify a compliance issue, cut CRs, get them approved, and then be able to execute these CRs and more seamlessly fix these issues on the fly."
"As this solution provides strong support and has multiple use cases, it is worth the cost."
"The product's valuable feature is its ability to conduct patching for multiple servers simultaneously."
"The solution does not have a friendly subscription model because it forces users to take a five-year subscription simultaneously, charging millions of dollars."
"This product needs to improve its graphical user interface."
"In terms of what should be in the next release, I want integration and AI and so on. I'd like easy reporting where you can compare information, for example, "that job normally takes three minutes and last time it took six minutes or 10 minutes." Then you can get the information to the engineer of which job is taking more time than normal - understanding strange behavior compared to the baseline."
"CA installation processes are never anything but complex."
"We see improvement possibilities in the processing provision of predefined evaluations or individual objects, or in the Self Service portal, which can be used by any user to monitor objects or start objects."
"SQL server clustering is not supported."
"Pricing model for distributed should have an Enterprise option."
"It would be helpful to be able to monitor and manage workload windows so we could minimize downstream applications. This would allow us easier access to the applications."
"Resource management on the base servers is sluggish and could be improved."
"There is no other functionality available to patch the containers that we need to include."
"The architecture is big, so the initial setup is not a straightforward task."
"We've had to increase RAM and CPU processing in order to alleviate some of the sluggishness during patching."
"TrueSight falls short when we are trying to gather large amounts of data from multiple servers. We need to do these tasks manually because there is no option to populate the data and export it to Excel, which is required. For example, let's say I'm trying to find out how many patches are missing on the servers and which ones have been installed. It's hard to automatically pull each server's data in an Excel format."
"Needs more use cases into compliance management and the remediation process."
"The setup of this suite is very complicated. It needs to be simplified."
"I would like to see more container integration in the next release of this solution."
More BMC TrueSight Server Automation Pricing and Cost Advice →
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while BMC TrueSight Server Automation is ranked 12th in Configuration Management with 18 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while BMC TrueSight Server Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of BMC TrueSight Server Automation writes "Helps to automate and configure the endpoints of servers ". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Automic Workload Automation and Stonebranch, whereas BMC TrueSight Server Automation is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, BigFix, Red Hat Satellite, Microsoft Configuration Manager and HashiCorp Terraform.
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.
