Automic Automation Reviews

The vast majority of our clients basically execute batch and PowerShell commands. We have a few clients that execute stored procedures on databases. However, the primary use is for executing batch and PowerShell tasks.

The solution is usually pretty easy for non-technical people to pick it up as long as they have basic experience with scripting. It has been easier onboarding new clients to Automic Automation versus Dollar Universe since it's relatively easy for anyone to grasp basic workloads or workflows. Compared to Dollar Universe, which had weird terminology and was complicated, Automic is by far easier.

I find that documentation is either very good or borderline useless depending on where you go. There are opportunities where things could be documented a little bit better. Additionally, during the version 21 to version 24 migration, a lot of manual steps were required, which was somewhat inconvenient.

I have been using Automic Automation since 2018.

Broadcom has generally been responsive and supportive. Recently, for non-urgent issues, response times have been slower, however they react quickly when it is urgent. They have been good about getting us back on track when needed.

The only other solution I ever worked with was Dollar Universe, which was extremely complicated to use, especially when trying to teach non-technical users. Compared to that, Automic Automation is much easier.

For me, the initial setup was straightforward due to previous experience setting up similar systems. However, I do think there could be improvements, such as automating some tasks currently done manually. The initial setup could include more wizard-based steps to reduce configuration file work.

At the time of deployment, we had an entire team involved because we managed two production environments each with their infrastructure. Now, the environment has been consolidated, making management possible with two people.

Pricing is above my pay grade, however, the team lead mentioned that we have a good deal compared to other solutions out there.

I would rate Automic Automation as eight out of ten. I would advise staying current with updates and possibly considering improvements to documentation.

Hybrid Cloud

Currently, we support one of the bank's environments, which is highly complex and relies heavily on Automic Automation. This environment is massive, processing billions of batches daily across four environments, each with millions of jobs. We utilize Automic for various tasks, from simple scripting and file transfers to sending data to external parties like Bloomberg and Nets. Given the scale and scope of our operations, we primarily use Automic for most of our business processes.

We struggled with the manual process of loading data into our SQL database. By implementing Automic Automation, we've successfully automated many time-consuming tasks, significantly reducing the potential for human error.

Automic has significantly improved our IT operations by reducing costs and saving time. For example, manually triggering a script at 10 AM required logging into the server and clicking at the exact time, which took at least 15 minutes. Automic automates this, allowing us to schedule scripts without manual intervention. This benefit is magnified when handling thousands of scripts with dependencies, such as script A triggering B, C, D, E, and so on while managing upstream data and multiple file transfers.

Workload automation capabilities are crucial to our operations. While we depend on databases, Windows, and network infrastructure, Automic is a business-critical application supporting our core banking batches. Its importance cannot be overstated; it's essentially the backbone of our bank. As such, any issues with Automic must be prioritized and resolved promptly.

The file transfer feature is the most valuable for process automation, as many organizations rely heavily on data transfer. Consequently, file transfer functionalities are the most frequently utilized within Automic Automation.

Automic Automation struggles with managing external dependencies, limiting its effectiveness. Built as a self-contained system, it relies on internal workflows composed of basic tasks. When external workflows and dependencies are involved, Automic's limitations become apparent. Manual scripting has been necessary to address this, but integrating this functionality directly into Automic would significantly improve its capabilities. For instance, scheduling a job to run after a delay and only if previous batches are complete is currently challenging in Automic. A built-in feature for such dependencies would greatly simplify the process.

We occasionally encounter bugs when applying new agent versions, patches, or updates to Automic. This is problematic because Broadcom, the vendor, should thoroughly test their components before release. Unfortunately, we've experienced instances where bugs have been discovered after deployment, highlighting the need for improved testing practices from Broadcom before making products available to the market.

I have been using Automic Automation for four years.

The new version experienced significant stability issues. While the vendor may share responsibility, our outdated infrastructure, particularly the ten-year-old data, also contributed to the problem. Queries on such old data were time-consuming and impacted tool performance. We identified and addressed our infrastructure shortcomings with the vendor's assistance. Although there were initial challenges, the system is now stable. We continue to work closely with the vendor to maintain optimal performance.

Automic Automation is highly scalable, with thousands of agents deployed as part of our baseline build. Consequently, every server in our large environment hosts a UC4 agent.

We can connect with technical support by submitting a ticket through the portal, and support is prioritized based on the impact on our business. However, in many cases, we have found that the vendor does not provide a thorough root cause analysis. Instead, we often receive generic recommendations to upgrade our systems or infrastructure.

Neutral

I previously used IBM Workload Automation. Both IBM Workload Automation and Automic Automation have their advantages and disadvantages. IBM Workload Automation was capable of handling all external dependency requirements. We have integrated similar capabilities using other methods, but not within Automic. While Automic might be more expensive, the cost depends on the chosen purchase and licensing model, including options like premium support.

I was involved in upgrading Automic Automation from version 12 to 21. This complex process is highly dependent on the environment and requires extensive planning. Before the upgrade, we must reboot all potentially impacted systems, release specific certificates, and upgrade the agent to ensure compatibility with the latest version. Automic release notes, accessible in their documentation, provide crucial information about potential issues and compatibility requirements. While these compatibility metrics should be carefully reviewed, the complexity of the process varies significantly based on the specific environment, ranging from simple to highly intricate.

Four people were involved in the upgrade process, which took 18 hours due to the necessary migration of our large database.

Automic Automation is costly.

I would rate Automic Automation eight out of ten.

We have a team of 31 people who work with Automic Automation.

Our expert team makes maintenance of Automic Automation easy.

I recommend Automic Automation as a powerful tool with solid functionality. It offers numerous options for completing various tasks in multiple ways.

Everything hinges on a solid foundation. Therefore, a dedicated server for Automic Automation is crucial. Sharing a machine with other applications can introduce latency issues. To avoid this, establish a separate machine with its own VLAN and database exclusively for Automic. A dedicated environment ensures optimal performance. However, installing Automic on shared infrastructure is likely to cause problems.

On-premises

I am a systems administrator and primarily responsible for maintaining the physical servers, databases, upgrades, managing vulnerabilities, and granting permissions to our customers who use it. Although I do not use the software personally, it serves housekeeping purposes.

Automic Automation allows us to serve the service without interruptions. It supports high availability by operating multiple servers concurrently, which means users do not experience outages or the need to log in again, even if some servers are updated. This seamless operation is crucial for us as administrators.

The support and knowledge of incident management could be enhanced. There have been unresolved issues persisting for years, affecting customer satisfaction. Improvement is needed in both the response time and the depth of problem resolution provided by support.

I have been working with the solution for two years now.

It's easy because it was installed several years ago, and we only conduct upgrades now. The upgrade process is straightforward with internal scripts to update data in specific folders. The main challenge is performing the upgrades multiple times across test, development, QA, and production environments.

The stability is high, rated as nine. There is minimal downtime, and overall, it functions reliably.

I hold scalability in high regard, giving it a perfect score of ten. The solution effectively supports our existing user base and is equipped to scale further.

The quality of customer service is lacking. Previously, support was more proactive and involved live sessions to resolve issues. Recently, support tends to delay resolving problems, asking repetitive questions without providing solutions.

Negative

I have worked with Control-M from BMC Software previously. While I prefer Control-M's visual interface, Automic Automation offers its own unique set of job scheduling elements. Over time, I have acclimated to Automic Automation’s approach and can manage and troubleshoot within its environment.

The initial setup was done years before I joined, and I do not have information about it.

As a rough estimate, Automic Automation has helped reduce workload failure rates by fifty percent. However, the reduction largely depends on the business unit in question.

Overall, I would rate Automic Automation as an eight. I would recommend it because it is stable, scalable, and supported by one of the major companies in IT services. However, having two schedulers can be beneficial to ensure license negotiations are feasible. I rate the overall solution as an eight.

On-premises

We use it for scheduling cloud jobs and on-premises jobs.

The scheduling feature is very user-friendly.

They could improve by providing more control features for schedules. For example, we can hold a job, and then it could stop the job in the actual end application. They could improve such capabilities.

Automic Automation was probably implemented back in 2017.

Sometimes, I see performance issues when there are a lot of jobs running. Otherwise, it is pretty good. It is very stable compared to others. We rarely see issues.

Scalability is good. We started using it more often, so scalability is good.

Customer service is good. They are pretty quick. A couple of times I faced issues, but maybe the other person who was working was not there. Most of the time, they are good and on time.

Positive

Other teams used Appworx which was an old product. Appworx was bought by Broadcom. Because we have been using other products by Broadcom, we bought this.

I am only exposed to Automic Automation. I have not used other products.

I was not involved in the initial setup. I took over sometime in 2021. I did one upgrade with their support and development team's help, and it was smooth when they were there. I managed it myself for production because they provided the steps and did a recording, so I was able to understand the process.

It does not require much maintenance from our end. We renew the maintenance contract every year, but we have not used that much. The product is efficient.

The pricing was client-wise, but they are changing it to execution-wise pricing. So, we are in negotiation.

Overall, I would rate Automic Automation an eight out of ten.

It is an automation tool. We build the workflows and Linux and Windows servers with it, particularly for running client jobs and databases. We use it with a lot of big data ecosystem tools, such as Hadoop or HDFS.

We have automated regular ETL processes such as data transformation. They are loading data into databases and the HDFS file system.

We use it for data transfer jobs between servers. It is being used for SFTP-type jobs, and we run a lot of Python-based things with Automic.

It deals with business-critical processes. It is an important tool for us. For a lot of backend work, we use Automic Automation to run all kinds of jobs. We have some very complex jobs, but we also use it for some basic jobs. It is being used for very critical or high-priority jobs and complicated workflows with hundreds of jobs.

It has been easy for us to manage complex workloads using Automic Automation. The user interface allows us to zoom into a particular section of a complicated workflow. If we have 30 different jobs and scripts tied together in a workflow, we can use the graphical interface to work on one section of the job on our screen. We can also embed one workflow into another. If there is a complicated workflow, we can bunch it all into one workflow and embed that one into a different workflow. This way, we can manage more complicated workflows.

It is easy to use. We previously had a thick client which was Java-based, and now, we have the web-based one. Both have been easy to use. Building jobs and doing the admin side of things, such as monitoring jobs, checking reports of the jobs, and checking job statistics has been easy. It is one of the easy-to-use tools.

We could see its benefits immediately after deploying it. We were replacing a legacy tool with Automic. It was a new solution, and we could see all the new features in it.

We have a lot of alerting features and notification features. It even has a feature to notify us when a job takes longer than usual. If our workflow usually takes two hours to run, but it is taking longer, Automic Automation can notify us. It helps to reduce the error or failure rates.

Automic Automation has freed up staff to do other things more. By automating routine things with Automic, they can move on to doing other things. It surely frees up people's time. It is saving time for our staff.

Automic Automation helped reduce our operational costs. We used to get called often with our old tool because of more failure rates, agents going down, etc. In that sense, it is saving time for staff. If more tickets are generated, we would have to hire more people offshore. With fewer tickers and fewer job failures, we need fewer people.

Automic Automation has helped improve our ability to meet SLAs by being more reliable and more stable. It is a stable tool. Our jobs are not failing because technology is failing or agents are going down or not responding.

Since we bought it, we have not had any big issues. We are satisfied with it. We are able to run multiple jobs. We can build and run complicated jobs. There are no issues. The user interface and other things are easy to use, and people are generally happy with the tool.

We use Automic for both legacy and modern systems. We have automated Linux workflows, shell scripts, database jobs, and big data jobs such as HDFS jobs and Spark jobs.

Integration with the cloud is an area for improvement. They have to make it somehow fit or usable for cloud use cases. Right now, it works great for our on-prem data center, but they have to come up with a very good reason why people should be using it in the cloud. 

We got the tool in 2015, so it has been nine years.

It is stable. We have not had any issues related to stability.

It is scalable. We only have a two-server cluster. We never had a need for more than that. We have the licenses to add more servers in case we need more throughput from Automic.

I have interacted with them a lot of times. They can be better, but overall, they are okay. If we have a severe or high-priority issue where we need help immediately, we get very experienced engineers, but if it is a routine issue, there are a lot of emails back and forth. So, for low-priority issues, there can be some improvement.

Neutral

We used to use a tool called Redwood Cronacle previously. We got separated from our parent company, and our managers had more autonomy to select the tech stack and switch to a different technology.

So, we had an old tool before, and we wanted to replace it. Back in 2015 or 2016, when Atomic was selected as a vendor, we were looking at all the features, the integrations with HDFS, and the agent architecture they have. We were also looking for the stability of the tool. With the previous tool, we had a lot of stability issues, such as agents going off, so we were looking for a more stable tool. We also wanted to have a more modern tool.

Given the number of jobs we had, it took us a long time to move to it, but we expected that. We were able to do it within the allotted time. In that sense, we did not have any unforeseen issues when we moved to Automic Automation.

Given that we had hundreds or thousands of jobs, it took us about six months to complete the move. We totally deprecated our old tool and moved 100% of our jobs to Automic Automation.

It does not require anything big in terms of maintenance. It just requires upgrades. Other than that, there is nothing. The platform is stable.

They have increased the license price a little bit. It is more than what we expected about two years ago. So, there could be some surprises when it comes to pricing.

It is an easy-to-use tool. You do not have to spend too much time learning the interface and other things. It is a stable tool. It is reliable.

We have not used the predictive modeling provided by the AAI capability. We tried it for a while, but we did not have any advanced use cases where we had to dig deep into the system. We have some basic reports, and people seem to be happy with that.

We predominantly use it for on-prem jobs. We never tested it on the cloud. It seems complicated. It needs a lot of setup such as opening the network and the network's firewalls and other things. It seems difficult. We may also need a different type of licensing to run from the agents in the cloud, so we did not try it. In the future, we may use Automic Automation with the cloud.

I would rate Automic Automation a nine out of ten.

We have many different use cases. One use case is to back up all our servers. This is a big usage. The next one is to schedule things on SAP systems. We have SAP reports. We have processes where different SAP systems are involved and we can build up dependencies. We create business process flows. This is a big use case.

We use Automic Automation for managing databases, such as SQL databases, Oracle databases, and SAP databases. We have customers who use UC4 for general monitoring, system jobs, and other things. These are the main use cases.

We have some business-critical processes. For example, if a file is there, then the file has to be loaded to SAP. The customers can then, for example, print the papers to transport the goods. If our UC4 process does not happen, the papers cannot be printed and the goods cannot be shipped to a customer.

Some departments use it to handle the databases. If the process is stuck, then perhaps for Oracle databases, the archive files will not be moved to another folder, and the folder will grow and grow. There would be no space on the file system, and the application that is using the database cannot work anymore. We have some very critical processes and also many processes that are not so critical.

The biggest benefit is that we have one point of view on the processes. We can build dependencies, and we can have access to different platforms. We can integrate different platforms. This is the biggest benefit of Automic Automation.

Our systems are very big. At times, we have more than 11 million jobs per day or executions per day, and we have struggled with this amount in the past, but Broadcom has improved the application so that we can avoid such struggles. We have a big environment. When new functionality is implemented in the system, very often, we are the first ones to struggle with something, and then Broadcom has to improve it. Normally, it is a very stable product for us.

We have some very big workflows, which include more than a thousand objects, so it can be very hard for us to have a good overview of it all. That is why we build our processes in small steps. This way, it is much easier to handle them as one very big workflow. This is our experience, and we try to go in this direction.

We have the agent, or we can use the REST API. It is easy to implement in the end. The big challenge is that if you have many components in your systems, you have to update the components from time to time, and this, of course, is a big effort.

Automic Automation has saved time and helped free up staff for other projects or tasks. We automate many things with Automic Automation. If we had to do these things every day manually, we would lose a lot of time. It helps us save time for other projects.

Automic Automation has helped us reduce our operational costs. I am from the admin team, and we have to roll out the new version of our agent. We have more than 30,000 agents in our system. To update each agent manually, we would have to log onto the server, move the binaries to the target system, stop the agent, and start the agent. It would take a very long time to do this manually for 30,000 agents. With Automic Automation, we have the possibility to just say that we want to update this agent. The binaries will be moved to the platform, and the agent will be stopped and started automatically. We do not have to log in to the servers. It will be done in the background. Therefore, it is a big help for us in saving time.

It has so many possibilities, and many functions are important for us. We use it very often, so it is difficult to say which is the best one. In general, the complete functionality that Broadcom offers is very good. It is very flexible in terms of using the functionalities and build processes. The biggest benefit perhaps is that we have so many possibilities in UC4 or Automic Automation to reach the target. We can more or less build each requirement from our customers.

The visibility and control that Automic Automation provides are good, but it could be improved. In case we run into performance issues, it is sometimes hard to find out what is the real cause for it.

At the moment, the REST interface does not include everything. It was improved a little bit, but some functionality is still open. This is something that can be improved. There is nothing critical that is missing for that we cannot use Automic Automation.

I have been using this solution for more than 25 years.

I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.

It is easy to scale, but the database should support that scalability. We can scale processes, and it is easy, but in the end, the database must be able to handle that. We sometimes struggle a little bit there. 

In our experience, when we want to scale, we do, but we then see some negative side effects, and we have to go down again. We have to contact the support. In most cases, we need a patch.

Some errors are checked directly if you create an object, and for some errors, it is always best if Broadcom checks whether it fits or not, but, of course, not all of them can be done in this way. If we run into an error that we cannot solve immediately at our end, we have the possibility to create a support ticket. We have the possibility to specify the priority one, two, three, or four. If it is priority one, we normally get very fast support on the phone, and they help. If it is a normal error, a ticket is created, but it takes time to get a solution, which is okay.

I have good experience with technical support. We also have a TSE partner. If we have some problems, we can contact this colleague directly. That makes life very easy.

Positive

In the mainframe environment, we had our own solution, but it was a long time ago. It is not comparable with Automic Automation.

We are not using cloud environments at the moment. We work only with on-premises environments. We have databases. At the moment, we are focusing on on-prem because most of the automations are still on-prem. I guess it will change in the future, but I do not see the change to the cloud environment happening in the next two years.

I have not practiced the deployment process, but I know that we could support some of our customers. They really benefited because of this.

In terms of maintenance, maintaining the processes is easy, but before we roll out a new version, we have to test all the things. This is a big effort for us every time. We struggle every time a new functionality is implemented because in most cases, the product is tested in a smaller environment, and it works. However, we usually reach the limit and then we have to adapt the product. We have to get in touch with Broadcom for that. Before we can roll out a new version, we have to test it properly. This is a big challenge on our end. If you are a customer with a small environment, it is easier to install the application because you have not adapted many things. You can more or less use it as you installed it, but in a bigger environment, you have many adaptations.

We have our TSE as the contact person.

We do an evaluation from time to time. We check out the market from time to time to see if there is perhaps a better product, but at the moment, we are concentrating on this solution.

I could recommend Automic Automation, but it is a bit challenging if you want to implement it in a very big environment. If it is a small environment, it can easily handle that.

I would rate Automic Automation a nine out of ten.

We use Automic to coordinate batch processes for Oracle Utilities products like customer care and billing, and work and asset management. It helps us load customer data, meter reads, and process billing. We also use it to make calls to Solar processes and for file transfers across servers.

I like the GUI interface of Automic. We use it to coordinate batch processes and it's beneficial for orchestrating various processes, especially in the context of Oracle Utilities products.

Automic's database structure is not intuitive. When upgrading, the system breaks down frequently and we require a lot of support. More visual aids in the documentation would be helpful.

Probably four or five years, but I started focusing on it more in the last two or three years.

It's pretty stable once you fix the initial issues after deployment.

Scalability is good.

They are good and helpful, but many issues require support tickets due to inadequate documentation.

Positive

The pricing has been increasing significantly over the years, raising operational costs instead of reducing them.

We've been looking into other possible replacements because the pricing with Broadcom has increased significantly.

I would rate Automic a six due to its high price and other issues. For new users, I'd advise taking training courses and learning to read log files effectively.

Public Cloud

Other

I have been dealing with Automic Automation for probably around ten years. I have been both a partner with Automic, with Broadcom and with Autosys.

Automic Automation is a good tool that offers many advantages.

The greatest advantages of Automic Automation over its competitors include scripting capabilities.

The best features of Automic Automation are that we are able to support many endpoints.

Automic Automation's integration with cloud platforms for enhancing operational efficiency is positive, as it has many supported endpoints for cloud applications out of the box.

Intelligent monitoring with Automic Automation has helped in proactive decision making by providing an AI component.

Automic Automation's detailed logging and reporting has assisted with compliance by supporting major authentication systems and security systems.

Automic Automation has some disadvantages; it is more simplified, and sometimes it can be complicated.

The technical support by Automic, provided by Broadcom, is good with the same blocking support.

I have been working at my current company for thirty years.

Automic Automation does not have any major bugs after upgrading; these are pretty common for most software.

I would rate their technical support as an eight. The only thing I would improve is the upgrade process, which could be simplified.

Positive

My name and company name will not be mentioned. The overall rating for Automic Automation is 8 out of 10.

We use the solution across every business area for site switches, backups, batch scheduling, and other tasks.

We implemented the solution about 20 years ago when we switched from our legacy mainframe systems. We were looking for a scheduler to replace the one in our new SAP systems, as the SAP system scheduler wasn't considered robust enough. The solution was chosen to replace SAP scheduling at that time.

What I like most about Automic Automation is its flexibility to work across multiple platforms, such as Windows, Linux, and SAP environments. The ease of switching from one environment to another is particularly useful. I like its calendars and workflows. 

The support has declined somewhat over the years due to various takeovers. It's not as personal as it used to be.

I've been using Automic Automation since 2005 for about 19 years.

I rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten. 

I wouldn't rate the solution's scalability highly, but that's more due to our company's structure than its capabilities. We often don't know what's coming for our company in advance, so we might not always consider using it for new projects even though we probably could.

We initially bought it for SAP scheduling but soon found it could do many other things. For example, we use it for site switches between our two data centers, testing our critical systems once or twice a year. In the first two years of using it, our usage grew by about 400%.

Currently, we have about 400 agents and three environments: development, test, and production. We have approximately 150 users.

As for scalability, we currently only use about 20% of the CPU capacity, so there's plenty of room for growth. If we need to add more jobs or increase the workload, it's scalable. Increasing memory, disk space, or servers is also easy.

Before Automic Automation, we used a solution called ControlM, though I wasn't with the company then.

The deployment of Automic Automation was fairly straightforward, though we initially had a few minor issues. It took about a year before it went live, and only three or four people were involved in the process.

The solution does require daily maintenance, which mostly involves looking at the database and archiving older data to keep it efficient.

We've seen a return on investment, particularly in terms of resources. For example, when we have an outage for an upgrade, the manual implications would be vast without Automic Automation. If we were to ask everyone to do the tasks it does manually, we would need a lot more people.

The solution seems expensive to me, but it does the job well.

We did face some challenges during the early implementation about 17 years ago. There were occasions when jobs replicated themselves and filled up the database, causing system downtime. However, we've since fixed these issues.

I would recommend Automic Automation to other users mainly because of its ability to work in multiple platform environments. For example, it's effortless to move files from a Windows system to a Linux system.

Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I think it's a very good product.

On-premises

In the past, I had used Automic Automation during the time when it was called UC4 for month-end close automation since we were running a shared business service involving an institution related to national healthcare. Our company used to support around 130 to 140 odd hospitals, causing a peak demand for the tool Oracle E-Business Suite, which became tedious for us. Later on, we introduced Automic Automation and automated the organization's entire processes, after which there were only two people required to monitor the month-end close automation since everything else had been automated. In the beginning, it was called Appworx, and then UC4. The areas of automation I had worked on in the past were successful. At present, I might have an opportunity to again work with Automic Automation.

The tool's scheduling capabilities allow the tool to do output scans based on the report outputs. One can read the output scans, put them into variables, and do some clever calculations for decision-making which a human can do in a normal setting. Automic Automation provides its users with flexibility and a flow chart visibility, allowing users to see how things are moving if there is a need for some action before resuming the workflow. The visibility Automic Automation provides across platforms worked well for our team in the past.

People have started moving to Fusion Cloud or the cloud in general. I wonder how the software works with Fusion Cloud since I don't know if the tool is cloud compatible. I also wonder if the integration of the tool with the cloud is done via YC or if the product has an integration capability that allows it to integrate into an Oracle Cloud. My main concern is whether Automic Automation is ready for the future.

Since I use Automic Automation on-premises, I need some clarity on whether the product can also be used on the cloud.

The tool lacks interoperability features. I would like to add an interoperability feature to Automic Automation, allowing one access to some messaging functionalities. I would like to see something in the product similar to Kafka. The tool should allow one to add subscribers. The tool would become very easy to use when you have multiple clouds in the mix, along with the interoperability feature. The aforementioned set of features in the tool can make it easy to register your different cloud consumers into the tool itself, and then based on the process, it could automatically go to the respective tool for the respective cloud.

I have experience with Automic Automation for three to four years. I am a user of the product.

It was a pretty stable tool. Now when you are dependent upon automation, the knowledge to do the month-end close process is not needed and goes away since you can automate it. There aren't any businesses supporting the automation of the month-end close very aggressively, and because of this, I don't have instances where we weren't able to complete it on a timely basis.

It was a scalable solution. We used the tool for its API capabilities, after which we could integrate it with other applications.

I contacted the solution's technical support since we did have a maintenance contract with them. If we needed any advice or if there was any specific issue, we used to raise a kind of a ticket with them, which the support used to address on a priority basis. The solution's technical support has always been excellent.

I had previously used Control-M and TIBCO. I found Automic Automation to be the best of all the tools I have used.

The initial setup was very easy. For setup, out-of-the-box APIs were there for our leverage which automatically had all your concurrent jobs, and everything was available by default in the tool because of which putting it into a chain, thread, or flowchart was very easy.

The solution was deployed on-premises.

Our company had licenses for five users at that moment in time when it was pretty okay. Our company had paid around 5,000 to 6,000 USD per license for a month.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it.

The use cases of Automic Automation were that we were supporting around 140 odd hospitals. We had a little bit of peak resource demand when we were doing it manually. We had approximately a person handling two setup boxes, because of which we had a peak in resource demand that went up to 70 people, especially during the month's end. By introducing Automic Automation, we were able to do all of the work for 140 hospitals using two people for primarily monitoring the tool and were not doing any work manually. I think we got a kind of huge gain, though we had to pay the two people monitoring the tool for their overtime.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises