We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Schedule a 30-minute demo or reference call with a real user from the PeerSpot community. Available only to members that are in a buying process for this product and have contributed a review that's then published.

Stonebranch Universal Automation Center OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is #10 ranked solution in top Workload Automation tools. IT Central Station users give Stonebranch Universal Automation Center an average rating of 10 out of 10. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is most commonly compared to Control-M:Stonebranch Universal Automation Center vs Control-M. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 31% of all views.
What is Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?

The Stonebranch Workload Automation solution, part of our Universal Automation Center platform, helps organizations automate, manage, and orchestrate their IT processes - across hybrid IT environments. 


1. Workflow Orchestration and Automation: Holistically control scripts, jobs, tasks, and IT processes running across your on-prem, hybrid cloud, and/or multi-cloud environments.

2. Real-Time Automation: With our event-driven automation technology, it is now possible to achieve real-time automation across your entire hybrid IT environment.

3. Self-Service Automation: With a focus on ease-of-use, you can empower your workforce with self-service automation using member roles and permissions.

4. BI & Analytics: Centralize operational control and insight with proactive monitoring, reporting, and alerts

Product Features:

- Drag-and-drop Workflow Creation: You don’t have to be a developer to create automation. Custom scripting is a thing of the past. Easily create workflows with an intuitive drag-and-drop user interface.

- DevOps enabled: Align priorities between IT Ops and DevOps with Jobs-as-Code, Infrastructure-as-Code, and bundle-and-promote features.

- Limitless 3rd Party Integrations: Integrate into any platform or application from the mainframe to the cloud. Use pre-packaged integrations, build your own, or download integration blueprints from the community-driven opensource marketplace.

- Available on-premises or as a SaaS-based deployment, the UAC is a modern platform built to scale with your business.

Buyer's Guide

Download the Workload Automation Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: November 2021

Stonebranch Universal Automation Center Customers

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

Stonebranch Universal Automation Center Video

Stonebranch Universal Automation Center Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Frank Burkhardt
Application and Database Administrator at Blue Bird
Real User
Top 20
Allows us to streamline the workflow so that the machines aren't sitting idle, and production is much quicker

Pros and Cons

  • "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."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

The primary use case is that we are now at the point where we are creating workflows and it is allowing us to shorten the time it takes for tasks to go through multiple machines. We wanted something that would give us better visibility.

How has it helped my organization?

We have different systems that do different things very well, and we previously had time frames for when tasks would have to be done. It has allowed us to streamline the workflow so that the machines aren't sitting idle. The work gets done and the information is available through production at a much quicker rate.

It really cuts down the time that multiple machines take to touch a task. We may have our ERP system create a file and send it to our integration server where it will dice and mash up some inventory requirements. We will send an order by FTP to our vendor and, at the same time, we're seeing that we have sent it in and that it should be on a truck and coming in in a few days. We see the specific time and can alert the planning group that we've already done this. It used to be these tasks were done on separate machines and would take 30 or 45 minutes per machine. If everything was clean, it only took 10 minutes from start to finish, but there was a lot of dead time making sure that each machine had time to complete its task in a base scenario. So it has really helped our abilities in terms of where we're at as a manufacturing organization.

Stonebranch has also saved us money because it has kept us from having to over-provision Windows Servers. With this solution we can put stuff in a workflow and get it through as quickly as can be, instead of allocating time on other boxes to do things. I believe it has kept us from having to add Windows Servers and drive up our costs with Microsoft.

What is most valuable?

I like that the users can kick off the tasks that the administrators have allowed them to kick off so that they are more in control of the data that they need. They don't have to contact IT or other people to get the data they need. It makes the users very self-sufficient and they like it too. They don't have to wait on people. When they know they need it, they can just go start the job and whenever it's done they get the data.

We're using the Universal Controller and, while it took a little while to get everything we needed into it, once it was there it became a really nice tool. We can delegate tasks through it or we can delegate all tasks for certain machines through it. It's a really nice, central point to let us know which tasks have failed. I come from a programming background and, as a programmer, I would output a log file from our jobs. After a while, people forget to check log files. With Stonebranch, as long as the error code is there, it displays on the dashboard right away, so you don't have to remember to go check the log file. It gives us a lot better visibility, and a lot more quickly. The Universal Controller, and everything we do with Stonebranch, is on-premise.

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. We don't use it to its full capabilities, but it is very strong and a very capable interface.

I really like the agents. We've had no trouble with them interfering with any of our other systems or vendors — and some of the machines they're running on are very flaky. But I've never been able to trace any problems back to Stonebranch. The problems we had after Stonebranch were the same problems we had before we put the Stonebranch agents on those machines. The interoperability is really nice. It has a minimal footprint, it doesn't consume much RAM, and there is very little network overhead unless the machine is actually doing something and sending data back. It's really nice to fire-and-forget. The syscontroller tells the task to start on the remote machine. The remote machine executes it and when it's done it sends back the package of data that the control holds and consumes. It's really a very well thought-out system.

What needs improvement?

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.

We don't really use the Stonebranch Marketplace. We looked at it earlier and management really wasn't impressed. So admin was told not to worry about it. It could be that if we were looking at it now, now that we're smarter, I think we would find things there. But we have gotten used to the way we're doing things now, so we don't want to rock the boat.

For how long have I used the solution?

We started looking at Stonebranch in early 2017. We had everything on, all the machines were connected, by mid-2017, and we had moved all services and scheduled tasks and cron tasks to it by late 2017.

We had been using version 6.3 and we are in the process of upgrading to 6.8 now.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's rock-solid.

The resiliency is very good. It is very solid. If the server shuts down, it will do its best to try and make up what it can, depending on how you have configured it. But it does a really good job of trying to recover gracefully. 

For example, a while back we had a Unix server go down and it was going down because of a bad connection with something that was hosted on another box. Stonebranch was aware of the problems that we were having even finishing. Once we got all the problems cleared, instead of it trying to continue running all 800 jobs that had been started but never finished, it only tried to rerun the last job, which I thought was a really nice solution. We didn't have 800 instances of the same job trying to be rerun.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Our production Stonebranch server is interacting with 27 different systems: Unix, AIX, Red Hat, and Windows systems. It's firing off about 1,000 jobs an hour and there's no problem. I don't see it taxing the CPU of the box we've got it running on it. It's incredibly scalable. I cannot imagine what it would take to start getting it overheated.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is very capable. The helpdesk is very responsive and knowledgeable and if they don't know, they will reach out to somebody on the engineering team. About 90 percent of the problems that I've had to talk to their helpdesk about have been through error on my part. Either I thought something was supposed to do something it obviously doesn't do, and I would have known if I had read the documentation better, or I had misconfigured something. They are very responsive and very knowledgeable.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We used cron and Task Scheduler from Microsoft and a gut-feel on how long systems should take to process something.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was very straightforward. I've come from a programming background, so distributed systems like this are something I'm very familiar with. It seemed pretty straightforward. It was a simple cut-and-dry task. It seemed very basic to me.

It took us between eight months and a year to deploy it across our organization. The implementation strategy was to get it done and make it work as quickly as we could.

What about the implementation team?

We had a consultant from Stonebranch come down for a week. I worked with him a little bit. He did some work and then I would do some work.

I've made a few calls to their helpdesk, but I have done 90 percent of it on my own, including the upgrades. It's a very simple system. It's not complex, but it does allow you to do complex things.

What other advice do I have?

Go at this slowly and methodically. When they came in, they did a lot of things very quickly, and we didn't really understand the implication of the answers we were giving. We have gone back to re-do a lot of that work. Now that we're smarter, and much better at this, we have found that being slow and methodical pays off in the long-run.

The solution has enabled digital transformation at our company but it's been a very slow process, and that is because the people we have are very traditional, old-school people. This is a little outside of the norm for people who grew up using the Windows Task Scheduler. They are having a little trouble with this. The idea of correcting workflows is still new to some of these people. It is allowing us to have the digital transformation — we're able to move things through quicker — but I don't know that everybody is aware of this or is taking advantage of it. New systems are being bought and spec'd out, and we can get Stonebranch to work with them, but it's kind of as an afterthought. They aren't used to thinking of Stonebranch when they're looking at the new systems.

We've got a couple people in engineering that are using the solution but it's mostly IT people who are using it, programmers and their managers. Our ERP coordinator uses it a lot. In engineering we've got CAE administrators using it to shut down and restart processes for their systems. And we have a couple of other users using it, but their use is very limited. We give them the tasks but we don't give them a lot of tasks as they are a small cog in the wheel. You can't give them too much power or they'll be messing up somebody else's job. We're mostly giving knowledge workers the ability to handle their own tasks if they can do it in a vacuum. That amounts to a few people in finance, a few in production, a couple in engineering and most of the people in IT. I'm the only person who handles deployment and maintenance of the solution. But that is not my full-time job. Once tasks get set up, they go and they run and they just work.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
HQ
Architect & Technical Director at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Scalable, stable, and very user friendly

Pros and Cons

  • "The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution for our clients.

What is most valuable?

The installation of the product is very straightforward.

The interface is very user-friendly and easy to navigate.

The solution is very stable.

The product can scale easily.

We've found the pricing to be reasonable.

What needs improvement?

The product is very new to us still. Therefore, it's difficult to gauge if there's anything missing. We're still learning about the product as we go.

For how long have I used the solution?

We started using this solution last year. It hasn't been too long.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the solution is very reasonable. It's reliable. We haven't found that there are bugs or glitches. We haven't dealt with it crashing or freezing. It's been good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is very easy to scale. If a company needs to scale the solution out, it can do so.

So far, the projects we are working on are for a small company. We haven't tried it for an enterprise-level company just yet. That may come in the future.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Before starting with this solution, we worked with CA.

How was the initial setup?

We've found the initial setup to be quite straightforward. It's not complex at all. It's very easy and this is one of the solution's selling points.

The deployment is quite quick. Within the hour I had everything pretty much up and running.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing is quite reasonable. We found the cost to be surprisingly good.

What other advice do I have?

We are a reseller. We are a software company.

So far, we've had a pretty good experience using the solution. We need a bit more time with it, however, to get more comfortable with everything.

Overall, I would rate it at an eight out of ten, as so far the experience we've had has been positive.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: reseller
Find out what your peers are saying about Stonebranch, BMC, IBM and others in Workload Automation. Updated: November 2021.
554,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
DF
Application Architect at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Reliable, scalable, with multiple workflows

Pros and Cons

  • "I like the dashboard and the various workflows."
  • "It can't handle negative written codes."

What is our primary use case?

I am a consultant. Stonebranch was used for retail businesses.

What is most valuable?

I like the dashboard and the various workflows. 

What needs improvement?

It can't handle negative written codes. 

If a program was providing a negative value, it wouldn't be able to handle it well.

There some issues with the conversions initially and with the initial simulations. These are areas that could be improved.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using the most recent version of Stonebranch Universal Automation Center for two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's reasonably stable and there are no complaints.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's a very scalable solution.

How are customer service and technical support?

I haven't dealt with technical support directly, but I have worked with people in the company who have worked with Stonebranc technical support.

There are no complaints, but they have to work on some of the criteria they use. Some of the things suggested didn't work well and didn't get converted properly. I have had to redo it because of that.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was handled by another department. We transitioned and built our virtuals after the environment was set up.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I am not aware of the cost.

What other advice do I have?

The project using Stonebranch has finished. I don't have access to the Stonebranch environment now. We last used it six to twelve months ago.

It was not complex for me, but you have to follow the documentation. Spend some time to learn about it, then it's no big deal.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Radomir P.
Senior DevOps Engineer at ING Tech Poland
Real User
Top 10
We use it for scheduling Unix and Wintel batches.

What is our primary use case?

Scheduling Unix and Wintel batches. Full package - finance, backups, transfers. Three environments.  

How has it helped my organization?

Our organization could enter the cloud at full speed. 

What is most valuable?

Triggers separate from tasks contrary to the competitors.  

What needs improvement?

Lifecycle management.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

solution in general stable however last OMS updates are blurring out this opinion.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

scalability is good however it is lacking alternative to extend controller cluster's node numer.

How are customer service and technical support?

reaction time is…

What is our primary use case?

Scheduling Unix and Wintel batches. Full package - finance, backups, transfers. Three environments.  

How has it helped my organization?

Our organization could enter the cloud at full speed. 

What is most valuable?

Triggers separate from tasks contrary to the competitors.  

What needs improvement?

Lifecycle management.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

solution in general stable however last OMS updates are blurring out this opinion.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

scalability is good however it is lacking alternative to extend controller cluster's node numer.

How are customer service and technical support?

reaction time is fair, however it happens that their will of help it not necessary handy, especially when you hardening the solution.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

previous scheduler was TWS 8.5.  More expensive, less stable, less capable

How was the initial setup?

a basic setup is straight forward however during setting some more advansed option it could be complex to achive

What about the implementation team?

in-house

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

for sure unlimited license

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

control m

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Product Categories
Workload Automation
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Workload Automation Report and find out what your peers are saying about Stonebranch, BMC, IBM, and more!