We performed a comparison between Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition and Stonebranch Universal Automation Center based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition stands out for its robust job definition capabilities, intuitive interface, live event monitoring, and seamless integration with different systems. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is praised for its exceptional performance, visually appealing graphical representation, and efficient task monitoring.
Redwood has the potential for improvement in reporting capabilities, monitoring and alert services, user interface, outage identification, and other aspects. Stonebranch has room for enhancement in cloud availability, analytics, task monitoring, and collaboration with the vendor.
Service and Support: The customer service for Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition has received generally positive feedback, although there is some room for improvement. Customers express satisfaction with the support they have received. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center's customer service is highly praised, particularly for its excellent technical support and knowledgeable team. Users rate their support as nine out of ten.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition was difficult and took a lot of time, whereas Stonebranch Universal Automation Center had a relatively easy setup. Redwood Software necessitated training multiple teams and managing a decentralized structure, whereas Stonebranch had a more user-friendly graphical user interface (GUI) for setup.
Pricing: Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition has a higher initial cost, however, users find it worth the investment, and the license renewal process is straightforward. In contrast, Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is more affordable compared to its competitors and necessitates an annual license fee.
ROI: Users of Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition have experienced significant time savings and improved job scheduling, resulting in ROI. One user gave it a perfect rating. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center has led to cost savings.
Comparison Results: Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition is the preferred choice over Stonebranch Universal Automation Center. Redwood Software offers a comprehensive solution with strong job definition and building capabilities, a user-friendly interface, real-time event monitoring, and cloud automation. It also includes features such as load balancing, memory management, and mobile notifications.
"One of Redwood Software's features that I liked was its event-driven automation, which allows IT teams to respond to real-time events, alerts, and notifications from numerous systems."
"REL expressions are quite helpful for setting up the preconditions."
"We can achieve anything that anything that we would like to do. In SAP, it's not generally possible with just with SAP. So we have solution manager as an option, but run by job."
"Its monitoring and alerting features are what I found the most valuable."
"There are various ways in which you can construct jobs depending on your business needs and requirements."
"It can centralize and support on-premises, hybrid, and cloud environments seamlessly."
"Multi-platform scheduling makes it easier this way rather than accessing one platform at a time."
"There won't be a memory outage issue, as it uses its own server/ECC memory only."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"We lean a lot on the multi-tenancy that they offer within the product, the ability to get other people to self-manage their estate, versus having a central team do all the scheduling."
"The features are upgraded, and every six months they're releasing patches."
"The tasks are incredibly capable, and as long as you name them with a nice, uniform naming convention, they are very useful. You can create some interesting workflows through various machines, or you can just have it kick off single tasks. All in all, I really like the Universal Task. You can do some mutually exclusive stuff, such as an "A not B" kind of thing. It has a lot of capabilities behind the scenes."
"I like the dashboard and the various workflows."
"The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."
"The Universal Agent is the most valuable feature. Being agent-based and being able to go across multiple technology stacks, which is what our workflows do, Stonebranch gives us the ability to bridge those disparate technologies. It enables us to remove the dependency-gap with the agent so we know the status of the workflow at each step."
"There is a lack of resources and product documentation which, if included, would help to gain more knowledge about the application."
"Due to the abundance of competing automation technologies available on the market, connectivity with any cloud platform can be improved."
"The product can improve customer service."
"We need the ability to pull data into an Excel format."
"The reports are downloaded in .CAR file format, which makes it difficult to convert to an Excel file."
"The only issue at first was that we had to manually delete or raise the event in order to run some of the events and wait for jobs, even if the file was kept at the correct AL11 position."
"Having a graphical user interface for the dashboard would be great."
"We need the automatic creation of incidents for failed jobs."
"It's not available on the cloud, so they should take that due to safety, security, and scalability."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"Stonebranch Universal Automation Center could improve the analytics."
"I have a request regarding our agent on the mainframe. It may time out when communicating to the Universal Controller, when the mainframe is extremely busy. That can cause a task which is running at that time to not see the results of the job that ran on the mainframe. It happens sporadically during times of really busy CPU usage. We're expecting that enhancement from them in the fourth quarter."
"One hiccup we've had is due to the fact that we have other internal scheduling tools. We're able to talk to them, but we have trouble with some of the networking between them, so we're still trying to work out the kinks there."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"There is a component called the OMS, which is the message broker. We rely on infrastructure, resiliency, and availability for that piece. If that could change to be highly available just as a software component, so that we don't have to provide the high-available storage, etc. for it, that would be a plus. It would just be cheaper to run."
"It would be ideal if they had the exact same features as the CA Workload Automation DE series. It would be helpful to have calendaring options."
Redwood RunMyJobs is ranked 3rd in Workload Automation with 30 reviews while Stonebranch is ranked 16th in Workload Automation with 26 reviews. Redwood RunMyJobs is rated 9.6, while Stonebranch is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Redwood RunMyJobs writes "Simple to use, increases CPU speed, and reduces the cost of machine time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch writes "Allowed us to develop workflows without having to train and develop very specialized skillsets". Redwood RunMyJobs is most compared with Control-M, Tidal by Redwood, AutoSys Workload Automation, Automic Workload Automation and Automic Automation Intelligence, whereas Stonebranch is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Control-M, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, IBM Workload Automation and VisualCron. See our Redwood RunMyJobs vs. Stonebranch 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.