Rocket Zena vs Stonebranch comparison

Rocket Software and Stonebranch are both solutions in the Workload Automation category. Rocket Software is ranked #22, while Stonebranch is ranked #10 with an average rating of 9.5. Rocket Software holds a 2.5% mindshare in WA, compared to Stonebranch’s 4.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Rocket Software users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of Stonebranch users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 2, 2025

Stonebranch and Rocket Zena are competitors in the automation and orchestration industry. Stonebranch is often preferred for its pricing and support, while Rocket Zena stands out with more features, justifying a higher price point.

Features: Stonebranch offers cross-platform automation, a user-friendly interface, and real-time analytics. Rocket Zena is known for excellent integration capabilities, security features, and a comprehensive set of features that appeal to larger setups.

Room for Improvement: Stonebranch can enhance its integration capabilities to match the breadth offered by Rocket Zena and expand its feature set for larger enterprises. Rocket Zena, on the other hand, can improve its ease of use to be more intuitive and enhance its deployment simplicity by streamlining the onboarding process. Pricing adjustments might help Rocket Zena become more attractive to smaller businesses.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Stonebranch provides a simple deployment process and has an excellent reputation for customer support. Rocket Zena offers scalable deployment but involves more complexity, fitting best for larger organizations. Both products offer strong customer support, although Rocket Zena is tailored for scalability.

Pricing and ROI: Stonebranch features a competitive initial cost and a high ROI, appealing to small-to-medium businesses due to its efficient operation and lower investment. Rocket Zena, while having a higher initial setup cost, provides a compelling ROI for enterprises needing extensive automation functionality due to its advanced features.

To learn more, read our detailed Rocket Zena vs. Stonebranch Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Rocket Zena vs. Stonebranch

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,665 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

JAMS

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Workload Automation category, the mindshare of JAMS is 2.8%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rocket Zena is 2.5%, down from 3.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Stonebranch is 4.6%, down from 5.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Workload Automation Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
JAMS	2.8%
Stonebranch	4.6%
Rocket Zena	2.5%
Other	90.1%

Workload Automation

Featured Reviews

reviewer2770605

Cloud Engineer at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees

Has streamlined complex job scheduling across scripting languages while reducing manual effort

JAMS could be improved with a web client that is accessible and as fast as a normal website, eliminating the need to RDP to the servers to access the JAMS client. A functionality running on the JAMS server to continuously check the JAMS agents would ensure they are working properly. If an agent is not responding, a feature to restart the service from the job server machine would be beneficial. The upgrade process, particularly when switching from V6 to V7, could be clearer in terms of documentation, ideally with screenshots showing exactly what needs to be done on each screen.

Read full review

JuanGonzalez6

IT Solutions Manager at a government with 5,001-10,000 employees

A continuously evolving, stable solution, with responsive support

The visual whiteboard for design and execution included with the solution is very crucial to those who are new to Rocket Zena, especially so that the learning curve is minimized and they can focus on accomplishing the task. We process our system's payroll through Rocket Zena. The fact that it's a multi-process, multi-layered application, means that we can rely on the solution for kicking off processes, notifying user vendors of the steps, completions, error logging, and historic events from the previous run times. Rocket Zena's ability to automate jobs on the mainframe as a distribution workload automation solution is good. The solution continuously improves over time. We're eager to start the latest upgrade this coming year that'll put us on the cloud. Hopefully, this will improve the product even more. We can run things natively without the scheduler if needed. The solution working properly and up to date without the need for a mainframe scheduler is crucial. We use the solution to manage a few complex operational workflows end-to-end across multiple technology stacks. Rocket Zena does a great job of simplifying our cross-platform processes through automation. The solution helps speed operations up and keeps them automated allowing us to focus on other priorities. The solution helps increase our completion rates by working overnight to meet our SLAs. Rocket Zena completes 30 percent of our workload outside of our standard work hours. Rocket Zena's cross-platform job scheduling helped us save around 40 percent of programming time by automating repetitive tasks. We use the solution to transfer our current files and keep up with our infrastructure on a few automated jobs, such as refreshing our database which happens overnight. The solution helped free up around 15 percent of our engineer's time to focus on more value-added work.

Read full review

Saktheeswaran Ravichandran

Lead Administrator at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Modern workload automation has unified job scheduling and reporting across regions and platforms

I feel that Stonebranch can be improved in certain areas. Since I have been a Control-M user for a very long time and have also used Dollar Universe in the past, creating a task or job and then creating a schedule with time triggers and other triggers in different objects feels a bit complicated compared to other tools in the market where everything is laid out in a single pane and scheduling is easy. Here, since we have a task and a time schedule and time trigger separately from the task, I am getting a bit confused becoming accustomed to those concepts, but that can be managed more easily.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The ability to sequence jobs is excellent; it means we don't have to schedule them individually, and if one fails, it doesn't unwind the entire workflow."

"The most valuable aspect of JAMS is its robustness."

"Fortra's JAMS helped us centralize job management across our platforms and applications. This is critical because we schedule tasks across multiple applications and operating systems, using triggers and start dates to coordinate their execution."

"It's a full-featured job scheduling tool. The part that I liked the best was the support team. This tool was new, and we were all learning it and setting up the different jobs that were complex in nature. Their support team was very responsive in helping us out through the setup and resolving the issues. They have been incredibly awesome."

"The most valuable feature for us is that it's DR-ready. With respect to disaster recovery, it has the built-in capability for failover to our DR site. If all of the required ports are open, it can be done seamlessly."

"The user-friendly and adaptable scheduler allows us to manage various scheduling scenarios."

"The planning capabilities are most valuable."

"The product is easy to use."

More JAMS pros

"I like the whole product, but specifically, I like the license part. It's very easy to acquire a license for this product."

"The most valuable feature is the FTP file transfer."

"From a Linux configuration point of view, Rocket Zena is straightforward. It's fairly easy to set up the server and agents once you know how to do it."

"I have found the scheduling feature the most valuable. I can map dependencies by using ASG-Zena. It gives a nice, quick visualization as to where things are."

"In the latest upgrade, Zena added a web-based client. The more I use it, the more I like it. It's an excellent interface. They do a good job of steadily improving the solution to make it more useful."

"We haven't had any problems since we installed it. It runs as expected, we haven't had any critical problems. It helps keeps the business running 24/7."

"You can click Ctrl-G and bring a diagram view. You're able to view in a diagram format. The view that it provides is easy, and you can move to the left, up, or down. You can double-click on a certain process. It'll drill into that process and all of its underlying components. You can double-click on an arrow or a component, and it'll bring up a screen that'll have all the variables that are assigned to that particular piece, as well as the values at run time. So, the diagram feature of it, at least for me, is pretty valuable."

"Its FTP feature is very good, as is scheduling any process or task with the Zena client. I have found it to be very helpful. If a task fails, it gives you a prompt."

"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 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."

"Stonebranch performs well, and the graphical representation is excellent. Overall, it requires more technical effort from our teams, but the solution is intuitive, so anybody can use it."

"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."

"When it comes to agent technology and compatibility with other vendors, from a platform perspective it was the one vendor that fit all the platforms that we have, from your old platforms - mainframe, NSK, IBM i - to the new ones, going into cloud and container"

"In every way, Stonebranch is a very much improved product in the industry."

"I have found the agents to be so much simpler, when compared to ESP."

"The support is good from Stonebranch Universal Automation Center."

More Stonebranch pros

Cons

"JAMS notifications for hung jobs could be improved."

"I want JAMS to implement a global search function."

"It does validations when you try to delete an object and if there are any dependencies in place, the deletion process will not proceed... there is no information provided as to what it was that caused the validation to fail... it's quite a tedious process to find which object is getting in the way."

"JAMS handles exceptions fairly well but there are some areas where it might improve a little bit. It has to do with being able to automatically handle exceptions, out-of-the-box, rather than having to code them."

"Improvements could be made in the service desk's knowledge and communication skills among engineers to better address customer needs and ensure issues are fully resolved."

"The ACL or access permission area needs to be improved. When it comes to defining and providing security permissions, it's a bit confusing if you are new to JAMS. JAMS needs to improve the features for security access or permissions."

"The JAMS automation code isn't so clean."

"JAMS doesn't allow us to implement SOC controls. We are a company that trades stocks on the New York Stock Exchange, so all our transactions are audited. It has a feature that saves the file for only a month but doesn't segregate the data between finance and SOC-related compliance."

More JAMS cons

"The documentation has room for improvement."

"One area where it could be improved is communication between the different servers. Sometimes there are processes that have already been completed but we get a status notification that they're still active."

"In the next release, I would like the user experience to be improved. The user interface should be more appealing to gen-z."

"In the web interface, it stacks the tasks across the top, and they accumulate until you close or clean those out. That seems a little cumbersome. You must right-click and close all tabs constantly to keep the console clean and manage your views."

"The scheduling mapping is a little disjointed. There is no wizard-type approach. There are a lot of different things that you have to do in completely different areas. They could probably add the functionality for creating all components of a mapping or an OPA schedule. The component creation could be done collectively rather than through individual components."

"The UI is not intuitive, and it would be nice if there was a web interface."

"Another one that is probably a little bit bigger for me is that when there is an issue or there's an error, it writes on a different screen. I have to find the actual process name and go to a different screen to view the alert that got generated. On that screen, everyone's processes, not just the processes of the folks in my department, are thrown. It takes me a while to find the actual error so that I could go in there and look at the alert. It could be because of the way it was set up, but at least for me, it isn't too intuitive."

"Rocket Zena is a mainframe-based job scheduler. I would like it to be more open so that we can use it on a distributed platform."

"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."

"I would rate Stonebranch somewhere in the middle for ease of setup. It wasn't too straightforward for us because our infrastructure is complex."

"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."

"I feel that Stonebranch can be improved in certain areas."

"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."

"There is room for improvement with its connectivity with the Microsoft SRS system. It is very weak. They keep telling us it works with it, and technically it does, but it does not provide a lot of visibility. We have lost a lot of visibility migrating to Stonebranch, compared with just running tasks on the SRS server. That's really about the only thing that is a sore point for us."

"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."

"The Universal Controller is decent for the money it costs... It needs some work to have full features, compared to other products that are out there, specifically IBM's Workload Scheduler."

More Stonebranch cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I haven't been involved in the financial side for several years, but we buy one host and unlimited agents, and we get a reasonable price for that. We're happy with the amount we pay and the scalability it provides."

"JAMS is priced competitively compared to similar solutions and offers flexible licensing options to cater to user needs."

"There are no additional costs other than the license for Fortra's JAMS which is affordable."

"Fortra's JAMS pricing structure has deteriorated significantly since its acquisition by Fortra."

"It's certainly a lot cheaper than Tivoli and Control-M. In comparison to them, you get a lot more bang for your buck. You get pretty much the whole functionality and more, in some cases, when compared to Control-M, but at a fraction of the price."

"Definitely check how many single processes you want to run and count them as jobs. That is how you would work out your pricing on JAMS. For example, if you're running a number of commands and you can put them all into one script and run that script, you can count that as one job."

"All licensing models are a little overpriced, but JAMS offers a good value, especially given their support response times and ability to handle unforeseen issues like the SFTP transfers. I hope to find more use cases to get a better bang for our buck."

"This is a good product at a fair price."

More JAMS pricing and cost advice

"The pricing and the licensing are good. It is affordable and can be used to improve and optimize productivity."

"Outside of licensing fees, there aren't any other costs."

"Stonebranch is cheaper than Control-M, so many companies are using Stonebranch."

"When we reviewed this solution against other vendors, Stonebranch blew everybody out of the water in terms of cost."

"The price of the solution is at a medium level compared to the competition."

"I don't have pricing information, but I do know it's cheaper than our old legacy system. Other than the standard licensing fees there are no additional costs."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Healthcare Company

Financial Services Firm

29%

Insurance Company

10%

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

24%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Insurance Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	8
Large Enterprise	18

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Large Enterprise	6

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	1
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	23

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about JAMS?

I find the historical tracking feature of JAMS invaluable for reviewing past events.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for JAMS?

They recently switched to subscription-based pricing, which increased. The price is fair considering the functionalit...

See all answers

What needs improvement with JAMS?

As far as we are using JAMS version 6, it looks good and there is nothing major to add about it. Everything is functi...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of Stonebranch has been that it is a very affordable tool, ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?

Stonebranch can be improved by making it more familiar to other tech geeks. We can add various other features such as...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?

My main use case for Stonebranch is for job scheduling and to see the workflows and for troubleshooting any failures....

See all answers

Comparisons

Control-M vs JAMS

Compared 17% of the time

AutoSys Workload Automation vs JAMS

Compared 9% of the time

Redwood RunMyJobs vs JAMS

Compared 9% of the time

Automic Automation vs JAMS

Compared 7% of the time

UiPath Orchestrator vs JAMS

Compared 4% of the time

More JAMS Competitors

Control-M vs Rocket Zena

Compared 33% of the time

IBM Workload Automation vs Rocket Zena

Compared 12% of the time

Rocket Zeke vs Rocket Zena

Compared 8% of the time

AutoSys Workload Automation vs Rocket Zena

Compared 7% of the time

BMC AMI Ops vs Rocket Zena

Compared 3% of the time

More Rocket Zena Competitors

Control-M vs Stonebranch

Compared 25% of the time

AutoSys Workload Automation vs Stonebranch

Compared 17% of the time

Redwood RunMyJobs vs Stonebranch

Compared 10% of the time

ActiveBatch by Redwood vs Stonebranch

Compared 7% of the time

ESP Workload Automation Intelligence vs Stonebranch

Compared 3% of the time

More Stonebranch Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

JAMS

January 2026

Download JAMS product report

Buyer's Guide

Rocket Zena

January 2026

Download Rocket Zena product report

Buyer's Guide

Stonebranch

January 2026

Download Stonebranch product report

Also Known As

No data available

ASG-Zena

Stonebranch Universal Automation Center

Interactive Demo

JAMS Software

Demo not available

Rocket Software

Demo not available

Stonebranch

Overview

JAMS is an automation and job scheduling solution designed for workflow optimization, catering to businesses large and small with flexible licensing and integration options.

Offering both Core and Advanced packages, JAMS supports a range of environments from small teams to large-scale operations. Its standout features include integration with platforms like PowerShell, SQL, and SAP, coupled with capabilities such as dependency management and natural language scheduling. JAMS simplifies job management, centralizes workflows, and boosts productivity with its robust automation features. Customizable workflows and insightful logging make it adaptable for diverse needs, supported by responsive customer service ensuring seamless operations.

What are JAMS's key features?

Automation & Scheduling: Flexible automation helps manage complex job schedules efficiently.
Integration: Connects seamlessly with platforms like SQL Server, SAP, and Python for diverse applications.
Centralized Job Management: A unified interface for handling thousands of jobs daily.
Dependency Management: Supports complex workflows with efficient dependency tracking.
Insightful Logging: Provides detailed logs and notifications for precise task execution.

What benefits should users look for in JAMS reviews?

Enhanced Productivity: Automates repetitive tasks, freeing up resources for strategic initiatives.
Scalability: Flexible licensing models grow with business size and needs.
Efficient Workflow Automation: Streamlines job orchestration across environments.
Responsive Support: Helps ensure smooth operations with quick troubleshooting.

In industries, JAMS is employed for automating workflows and managing batch jobs. Organizations utilize it for SSIS, SQL Server tasks, file transfers, and integrating with vendor systems, achieving efficient file automation and data management. Scheduler enables precise execution of thousands of tasks daily, enhancing operational efficiency.

JAMS Software

Rocket Zena offers scheduling and dependency mapping, intuitive interface, and containerized deployment. It simplifies workflow automation, enhancing efficiency across platforms.

Rocket Zena's strengths lie in its scheduling capabilities, graphical interface, and efficient deployment. It supports users in task management with cross-platform scheduling, streamlining repetitive tasks through automation. The web-based client facilitates process visualization and workflow management, while the notification system enhances task handling. Users can manage mainframe, Linux, and Windows environments while integrating with SAP and Oracle, ensuring comprehensive automation and efficient job execution.

What are the key features of Rocket Zena?

Scheduling and Dependency Mapping: Manages tasks efficiently with a graphical interface.
Containerized Deployment: Simplifies deployment and improves efficiency.
FTP Capabilities: Facilitates secure file transfers and backups.
Web-based Client and Whiteboard: Enhances process visualization and control.
Cross-Platform Scheduling: Automates repetitive tasks, reducing manual intervention.

What benefits and ROI should users expect?

Enhanced Efficiency: Automates complex tasks, freeing time for value-added work.
Improved Accuracy: Minimizes manual errors with reliable automation.
Streamlined Task Management: Simplifies workflow with intuitive notification systems.
Easy Integration: Supports SAP, Oracle, and other enterprise platforms.

In industries like finance and manufacturing, Rocket Zena plays a vital role in scheduling batch jobs and automating file transfers. It helps adapt task scheduling to business calendars and integrate with existing platforms, ensuring a smooth workflow that meets business objectives.

Rocket Software

Stonebranch specializes in enterprise automation, excelling in workload scheduling and batch processing across platforms like Linux, Windows, iSeries, and zSeries. This platform offers robust automation, enhancing operational efficiency and supporting digital transformation.

Stonebranch's platform-agnostic capabilities allow organizations to manage and integrate workloads seamlessly. Its Universal Controller is central to task management, offering a web-based interface for flexibility. Users appreciate its stability, with reliable agents facilitating workflow creation without specialized skills. Efficient file transfers and scheduling tools minimize maintenance, supporting diverse tech environments. Though Stonebranch is beneficial, users look for improvements in graphical workflow visibility, finalized API functionalities, and enhanced connectivity with tools like Microsoft SRS. Enhancements in training materials and cloud availability are also desired.

What are the key features of Stonebranch?

Ease of Automation: Simplifies workflow creation with user-friendly interfaces.
Integration Capabilities: Supports diverse platforms, ensuring seamless task management.
Platform-Agnostic Support: Compatible with Linux, Windows, iSeries, and zSeries.
Universal Controller: Centralizes task management for enhanced control.
Reliable Agents: Ensures stable deployment and operation.
Web-Based Interface: Offers flexibility in environment and access.

What benefits should you consider in Stonebranch reviews?

Operational Efficiency: Reduces manual effort with automated processes.
Digital Transformation: Enables complex tasks without specialized skills.
Flexibility: Supports multiple environments and web accessibility.
Centralized Management: Universal Controller simplifies oversight.

Stonebranch finds applications in sectors requiring enterprise automation. Organizations leveraging Linux, Windows, iSeries, and zSeries utilize it for workflow automation, file management, and integrating distributed workloads. It supports tasks like data extraction and analytics, managing thousands of daily operations to enhance visibility and minimize manual interventions.

Stonebranch

Sample Customers

Teradata, Arconic, General Dynamics, Yum!, CVS Health, Comcast, Ghiradelli, & Boston’s Children’s Hospital

Fraternidad Muprespa

Nissan, Coop, United Supermarkets, Groupon, CSC, Orbitz, Johnson & Johnson, BMW, Qantas.

Buyer's Guide

Rocket Zena vs. Stonebranch

January 2026

Free Report: Rocket Zena vs. Stonebranch

Find out what your peers are saying about Rocket Zena vs. Stonebranch and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Rocket Zena 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.