AutoSys Workload Automation Reviews

The solution can be used for scheduling workloads.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the functions are easy to use.

The solution could improve by having support for container environments.

I have been using this solution for approximately 10 years.

The solution is stable.

AutoSys Workload Automation is scalable.

I have many customers running this solution.

The technical support has been good.

I am using Stonebranch Universal Automation Center alongside this solution.

The price of this solution is reasonable and there is an annual license required.

I evaluate AutoSys Workload Automation an eight out of ten.

We are a system integrator and this is one of the products that we implement for our customers. AutoSys is primarily used for scheduling CP jobs, file transfer, and other miscellaneous jobs.

The graphical interface can be improved.

I have been working with AutoSys Workload Automation for the past five years, but not on a regular basis.

AutoSys Workload Automation is a stable solution.

This is a scalable product and we have about 50 users. We are planning to increase our usage in the future.

Since Broadcom acquired this product, the technical support has not been as good. They should really be faster and more knowledgeable.

The agent package and the other package should be more user-friendly to install.

I provide support on this product for our customers.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

My clients mainly use this solution for server workloads — work process flows around the deployment of servers, etc

This solution has made my clients' workplaces a lot less labor-intensive.

I have been using this solution for the past few months.

It is pretty stable from my understanding. I haven't heard any complaints about a run maintain.

AutoSys Workload Automation is very scalable. My clients were mainly large organizations and they never had any complaints about the scalability.

I never had to contact technical support so I cannot comment on that.

The initial setup is quite straightforward.

The pricing needs to be improved. Some of my client's complained that it was too expensive.

My advice would be to negotiate thoroughly on the price.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.

A strong aspect of our current use case is to provide integration with the Zeke mainframe scheduler and enable cross platform job dependencies between the two worlds.

Self-Service can enable the support team to move from being a bottleneck to being the go-to team for expertise and advice and to focus on maintaining the infrastructure.

Granular Security enables self-service role-based access. JIL language is always a big accelerator for creating/editing job flows efficiently.

Great at handling timezones and daylight savings adjustments.

Despite the commitment of the development team to improve the UI since version 11.3, the WCC module still lacks true quality. There are still too many screens and the use cases need to be handled in a more "compact" way. I have not seen the v12 product yet.

Note that this product is now a legacy product with a dwindling user base and support.

Do not consider for a green site implementation

We've been using v11.3.6 for years, and the tool in general since 2006.

We've had no issues with the stability.

We've had no trouble scaling it for our needs.

Customer Service:

The user conference used to be a great way to catch the attention of the development and product management team. Sadly, these are a thing of the past.

Technical Support:

Technical support has noticeably gone down since the Broadcom takeover of CA. A lot of the knowledge base is now on line and the expectation is that users self-support with that. The level of depth that the support organisation provides is not as deep as previously. We have not experienced any emergency situations though, so can't comment on that.

The initial setup was not hugely complicated, but do set aside four to six man-months if you are not using specialist services. The product does require some careful thinking around the High Availability and security sides. Thorough qualifications testing is recommended for a scheduler, too.

If you don't buy competence, you will need to build it internally which takes time. The recent versions of the product are a lot more complex than the relatively simple 4.0.

Legacy product with dwindling user base and support.

Get some specialist help if you don't have internal knowledge.

This product is now legacy.

We have used batch job scheduling and ad-hoc jobs in DEV, QA, UAT, PREPROD, and production for tier-one sensitive applications.

It helped us to avoid manual error. It helped us to reduce the manual efforts also. Helped us by giving alerts for long running jobs.

Virtual machine usage: It helped us to schedule the job to run on multiple servers based on the workload. It is automatically taking care of workload balance based on configuration settings.

Calendar usage is also very useful. It allows us to use our own calendar.

• It needs improvement in the high-availability side.
• It needs improvement in WCC console and EEM console to make it user-friendly.

My primary use case for this solution is for production.

This solution enables us to improve our daily processing times. We can do everything faster than before we used this solution.

The installation process is complex, and is pretty archaic. The people who developed this had very little concern with GUI interface and it is all command line. Everything is K-space, and if you misspell a task by uppercase, lower case, etc. you just completely think that the task is different.

It is a fairly stable solution. I have not had any issue with it.

It's pretty scalable, and ready for enterprise.

There is a slow response time. Unless, you say it's severity level one. That will give you a two hour timing window for them to call you. It doesn't really happen exactly in two hours, but they try.

The initial setup was complex. It had too many components. 

It is an overpriced solution. 

I would not say this is for a large shop, but for a small shop it is overpriced. 

We primarily use CA Workload Automation AE for batch management processing throughout the organization.

The tool provides added flexibility for our customers while maintaining our required control points. 

The web UI is beneficial and the granular security policies allow us to cover all of our audit requirements. 

Performance improvements in the UI would be appreciated. It lacks support and integration with cloud computing platforms.

We use it as an IT process automation solution.

We automate recurring processes, keeping track of IT processes controlled worldwide.

We often have to implement complicated processes. Automic Automation Engine provides us the ability to map logic using a scripting language. We have an advantage where practically all automation problems can easily be implemented within the Automation Engine.

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.

We have had no issues.

We have had no issues.

Technical support is always very helpful, though we do not use it often. 

All our problems have been resolved so far. Tips have also been provided on how we can handle a problem.

We had scheduled jobs on a mainframe system. By replacing the mainframe with a Unix system, we also changed the scheduler.

The setup of the system was relatively easy. 

We had good local support from Automic.

Everyone has to decide for themselves which licensing model is best suited to their environment.

We evaluated between different scheduling systems. We finally decided on the Automic solution.

Consult onsite support for the first implementation. Errors made at the beginning can only be corrected with great effort afterwards.