HCL Workload Automation

I use HCL Workload Automation  for several use cases. In 2022, we had a migration where we needed to upgrade from 9.4 to 10.1, and we built a parallel system because we could not upgrade directly from 9.4 to 10.1.

In that scenario, we went with the vendor, got all the inputs, and they suggested building a parallel system. We built the parallel system and successfully migrated our 9.4 environment completely to 10.1. Then from 10.1, in August 2025, we moved to 10.2, and just last weekend, we moved to 10.2.4, which is technology minus one.

Currently, we have 10.2.5. Overall, we use it in our environment through critical utility projects where one of our UK customers uses it for critical activities such as recurring jobs, hourly jobs, and every 15-minute jobs. All critical jobs are using HCL Workload Automation , and overall, we are in good shape using this tool.

One of the best features of HCL Workload Automation, which recently came for us from the 10.2.3 version, is the ability to migrate our certificates. This feature is significant because from the RHL 9 series, the X series does not accept the default 1024-bit certificates. Therefore, there is a utility tool called SECMAN, which is an inbuilt feature of HCL Workload Automation and very helpful for migrating our certificates from default to 4096-bit.

SECMAN is one of the good features, and migrating jobs from an XYZ tool is also very easy to do.

The real-time reporting and monitoring capabilities of the intuitive dashboards in HCL Workload Automation are good and almost accurate. We have reporting that we use to give to stakeholders and end users. They often ask for the job status and reporting of various XYZ jobs. This feature is very helpful, and we have received feedback from stakeholders and end users. We have given them access for reporting purposes, which has proven very beneficial for them. They have provided good feedback on that.

Concerning integration capabilities with other systems, I have integrated HCL Workload Automation with ServiceNow  and MuleSoft, which is very good. The integration with MuleSoft and ServiceNow  has facilitated our processes by simplifying the integration aspect. In TWS, I found it a bit complicated, but in HCL Workload Automation, the integration process feels very smooth, as we only need to change our endpoints accordingly based on the inputs we have from the open public forum. It is good to use.

The main benefits that workload automation, such as HCL Workload Automation, brings to the table are significant. We have received good reviews from customers. Currently, we are extending our software, as we will end our entitlement in December 2026, and they are in talks to further proceed with HCL Workload Automation. We have good features, good utility, and excellent feedback from all our stakeholders and end users.

In the future, I would like to see enhancements, particularly in the GUI console, the TDWC GUI console for the end user. We do not have many complaints, but I believe there is some slowness, which may be due to network connectivity. However, in some cases, we do experience lag in the TDWC console, which I think needs to be considered for improvement to speed up the end-user console.

As of now, I do not have much clarity on any additional features that I would like to see included in HCL Workload Automation in the future or any functionality that requires enhancement at the moment.

I have been working with HCL Workload Automation for nearly three years, as I started with HCL Workload Automation in 2022.

Apart from the slowness in the GUI console that I mentioned, there are no other performance or stability issues with HCL Workload Automation product.

Regarding the scalability aspect, in comparing both, there is no control on the administrator's part in the previous version. Whenever required, they just pushed codes from the DevOps team, and I saw many agents being installed without any logic.

In our migration from stack 9.4 to 10.1, we installed EC2  in a parallel system we built, which gave admin control. We can provide end users with knowledgeable sessions and demonstrate how to use this tool, resulting in a very easy and informed experience for all other audiences.

We have two customer support teams for HCL Workload Automation. When we raise tickets on the HCL forum, one is for licensing issues and another for product-related queries. I usually connect with them from time to time, and I receive feedback that is prompt as per the SLA. It is good.

I would rate the tech support of HCL Workload Automation as 10 out of 10. They support beyond the case or SLA and have been very responsive to my needs. I personally feel that their support is great, especially in cases where I was completely unfamiliar with an issue, and they helped me a lot.

I do not know why my company switched from IBM to HCL Workload Automation. They were previously running with IBM, and now they moved to HCL Workload Automation. I learned from my internal colleagues that regarding pricing, IBM is charging more, while HCL Workload Automation is less expensive, which is why they opted for this tool.

I am not familiar with the initial setup process of HCL Workload Automation because when I came into this project, they were already using HCL Workload Automation with the 9.4 version. If you ask me how we are now interacting with HCL Workload Automation and their cases, I used to reach them, and they suggest their options.

In terms of ROI, I have experienced time savings with HCL Workload Automation. I came across scenarios where end users were taking reports and performing manual efforts, still relying on cron job setups, and I automated those processes with this tool. Thus, I find it very time saving. However, I am not much familiar with cost-effectiveness at the moment.

I find the pricing of HCL Workload Automation reasonable. At the present market level, we are in good shape because we have numerous scheduling automation tools such as CA 7, Autosys, and AWA. Comparatively, HCL Workload Automation offers good pricing, as I have discussed with colleagues and friends in the market who noted that HCL Workload Automation has better pricing compared to their tools.

From my perspective, I do not see any key differences between HCL Workload Automation and IBM or other competitors. They both feel similar to me, with just some extra widgets and different outlooks on the tools. When I compare HCL Workload Automation with other market products, I have only worked in Autosys and Atomic Workload Automation, which is a Broadcom product, and I find that HCL Workload Automation is very user-friendly in the GUI.

It has a good gesture, making end users feel comfortable running their jobs, automation, and workflows easily without needing to be spoon-fed every time. They are aware of what needs to be done and what does not.

Regarding the impact of using HCL Workload Automation on reducing human error in operations, there is a checkpoint feature that is very helpful in minimizing human error. We have a recent workflow that I personally prefer, and it prevents human error within HCL Workload Automation.

We do not use the hybrid cloud feature of HCL Workload Automation yet. Currently, we are using HCL Workload Automation, as well as HCL Clara, Hero, and other customers. Between our customers, there are other stakeholders using multiple HCL products.

I have recommended HCL Workload Automation to a few of my colleagues who are considering switching their automation tools. One is TIDAL, a Cisco product, and others are CA 7 and AWA. I believe HCL Workload Automation is very easy to handle and manage for all those workload automations. I have rated this product 9 out of 10 overall.

I am working at the HDFC project in India as part of the support team for HCL Workload Automation , and we manage this tool for end users. As a Managed Service Provider, we handle L1, L2 creation and management tasks for this tool.

In our domain, HCL Workload Automation  automates the scripting part that is used in HDFC bank. For example, there is one server with a script that runs at 10:00 or 11:00 PM or AM, and through the tool, we can automate these scripts to run at specified times without needing to run them manually. This also applies to file transfer jobs, allowing us to transfer files created in the production server according to end-user dependencies.

The real-time reporting and monitoring capabilities on HCL Workload Automation's intuitive dashboard are good, as the dashboard is designed for monitoring purposes and shows correct data in real-time, making it easier to monitor applications within HCL Workload Automation.

Regarding real-time reporting, if any deployment has been done in production, it quickly reflects in the dashboard, making it easy for end users and us to see what deployments have been completed, which applications are live, and the status of the agents. We can also see whether the job configurations in production and DR were successful or are in a pending state. If a job fails, we can see the error through the dashboard without needing to manually access the server.

The Plan feature in HCL Workload Automation has been especially useful. It allows us to make changes to jobs without impacting the entire workflow immediately, which minimizes incidents in production and avoids disruption due to changes.

I have questions about the analytics feature of HCL Workload Automation. I do not know what Predictive Analytics  is.

The dashboard of HCL Workload Automation needs improvement. In the previous tool, Autosys, color indicators helped users quickly understand job statuses, but in HCL Workload Automation, it isn't clear, making it harder to rectify issues without manually checking job statuses.

I would rate HCL Workload Automation overall as a seven. HCL Workload Automation needs to work on the workflow design of the portal to make it more user-friendly so that it is easily accessible for users to check their application statuses and job statuses without frequent communication.

I have been working with this solution for seven to eight months.

HCL Workload Automation is more stable and secure, helping to avoid incidents and meet SLAs, making it a dependable tool.

Sometimes the application encounters issues, such as failing to connect with the database, but these are regular incidents and not critical.

For increasing infrastructure or adding users, while the application is good, I do not think its current capability can handle the large volume of scripts at HDFC because critical applications require high performance when many scripts are running at night.

I frequently communicate with the technical support of HCL.

The communication with the HCL team is good. They provide support, although sometimes there are delays, but I understand that.

I would rate the technical support as generally good, without issues.

I have experience with some existing applications that have migrated to HCL Workload Automation, which have some issues. However, HCL Workload Automation is a great tool as most major applications have been successfully migrated and are running smoothly.

There are some issues with scripts that were created according to Autosys variable specifications. After migrating to HCL Workload Automation, some applications failed to run as expected or took longer to complete compared to Autosys because of changes in variables or passwords that caused delays.

I did not participate in the initial setup and deployment of HCL Workload Automation. That was handled by the HWA team, and I am now focused on the migration of applications and ongoing job setups.

To evaluate the impact of using HCL Workload Automation on reducing human error in operations, sometimes there are issues with creating JIL or XML files. Some attributes are not well understood, and human errors can occur in job streams affecting their dependencies and timing, although these occurrences are not major.

HCL Workload Automation has helped us reduce human error in operations.

In our environment, Clara is being deployed and is currently in process.

I would rate this review a seven overall.