My main use case for Stonebranch is file transfers, such as FTP and SFTP protocols, where I mostly transfer files from Stonebranch to mainframe, AS/400, SharePoint, shared drives, and S3 buckets.

A specific example of a file transfer I have managed with Stonebranch is creating a job to trigger the transfer from mainframe to Stonebranch.

My main use case involves using Stonebranch for SharePoint and shared drives, where I build a PowerShell script and configure the setups, including the whole path to access Stonebranch and place the file in that specific path.

The best feature Stonebranch offers in my experience is its security, allowing users to easily access files while creating accounts for particular users, making file transfer and retrieval easy with a level of security superior to other transfers.

Stonebranch's security stands out to me because I use SFTP for secured file transfers, which includes encryptions and antivirus scanning to block any files containing viruses from transferring.

Stonebranch has positively impacted my organization because without it, I cannot send files, causing a huge impact since file transfers play a key role in production.

Stonebranch can be improved due to an issue I had a few weeks ago with data leakage, as the servers consume more RAM than usual during continuous file transfers, and this utilization should be less.

For my purposes, I believe there is nothing that needs improvement because Stonebranch is good as it is, and for further improvements, I will need to check with the vendor.

I have been using Stonebranch for five years.

Stonebranch is not stable as it has its flaws.

Customer support is good because I have an L1 team continuously monitoring my configurations and transfers, which helps me get support even in the middle of the night due to failures.

Before Stonebranch, I used XFB transfers and Connect:Direct transfers, which were unreliable and not as secure as Stonebranch.

I have not seen a return on investment since there are no relevant metrics such as fewer employees needed, money saved, or time saved.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been straightforward.

Before choosing Stonebranch, I evaluated other options since I had a bunch of software I considered, but Stonebranch provides more secure transfers than the others.

Stonebranch's security stands out to me because I use SFTP for secured file transfers, which includes encryptions and antivirus scanning to block any files containing viruses from transferring.

In terms of automation, I automate many tasks using Stonebranch, which helps reduce failures such as duplicate file transfers.

Specific outcomes from using Stonebranch include reducing errors, as my business cannot move without it. Error reduction is my key priority, and I educate users to not repeat errors, requiring them to include an MSA ID and ICN, which plays a key role in file transfers.

I rate Stonebranch an eight out of ten because everything has flaws, including Stonebranch. During migrations or updates, the application blocks transfers, which is a significant issue since file transfers are essential for selling products.

I advise others looking into using Stonebranch that it is a good tool for file transfers, allowing easy configuration of setups from anywhere and integration with anything.

Stonebranch is a good application for SFTP transfers that I use almost every day, and I have no additional thoughts about it before we wrap up.

Our main use case for Stonebranch is job scheduling, and we see the reporting and versioning of Stonebranch as very effective compared to other tools. That is why we want to migrate.

The best features Stonebranch offers in my experience include versioning and reporting capabilities, and bundling of apps was very comfortable using Stonebranch. That was very helpful. Stonebranch is helping us with our migration from Control-M, which has been very effective. We have completed a few waves of migration, and everything seems to be going very well.

When I mention versioning and reporting with Stonebranch, the application teams keep changing their scripts based on their new development. Whenever they change a script, the old script is saved. Whenever we want to recall that script, the versioning is very helpful. Understanding what modifications we have done in the past and what is used currently is very helpful. Reporting helps us observe the trend of how much the script has executed in the past and what sort of load is expected in the future based on that analysis.

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.

I have started using Stonebranch very recently. For the past six months, we have been using Stonebranch because we are planning to migrate from Control-M to Stonebranch.

Stonebranch is stable. We have a huge workload across multiple regions and we are running on the same UAC. Until now, we have not faced any unstable situations compared to other tools.

Stonebranch's scalability is very good. We actually split our environment into three different parts: integration, development, and production. The scalability regarding Stonebranch is good.

Our customer support for Stonebranch has been good until now. We received very good training given by Stonebranch staff, including operator training and administration training. They are helping a lot in our migration from our current tool. We have completed a few waves and everything went very well.

I have previously used Dollar Universe and Control-M. Dollar Universe does not have many features like versioning and does not have effective reporting. Control-M has most of the features that Stonebranch has, but it is a much costlier solution than Stonebranch. We are planning to migrate our Dollar Universe and Control-M workloads to Stonebranch.

I can share specific outcomes with Stonebranch. For Control-M, we use a separate client that has to be installed across all customer machines. In Stonebranch, since it is web-based, it is very easy for our customers to use and monitor their jobs. In that way, it is very helpful and user-friendly.

Since I have been using Stonebranch for the past six months, I have not used much of all the features available in Stonebranch. The API features are very helpful to us. Other applications that want their own API can easily develop it in Stonebranch and we can use it. We also have a small mainframe environment. Using Stonebranch utility, we can easily schedule mainframe jobs. It is very easy for us to trigger a job in distributed systems and to trigger a job in mainframes, which was very helpful with Stonebranch.

I see that with Stonebranch, the licensing cost is less compared to other tools. Money has been saved. We are trying to implement it across all our different regions. We plan to migrate all the different work scheduling tools to Stonebranch, so I think we will have a single centralized license that will save a lot of cost to the company.

From an organizational cost perspective with Stonebranch, it is a bit cheaper than other tools available in the market. Many features are combined and put together in Stonebranch. We have different objects that can be used in Stonebranch, apart from other products such as Dollar Universe, which I have used earlier. Control-M is almost the same as Stonebranch because it is a client-server architecture. I feel very effective using Stonebranch and it is very easy to use since we are using a web interface.

Before choosing Stonebranch, we evaluated other options. We were trying to extend the Control-M license since it is costly, and we looked at Automic from Broadcom. Tidal and Redwood were also a few options that we had on our list. We found Stonebranch much more convincing than all those other options and also cost-effective.

I have a very large environment with Stonebranch. We have around ten thousand plus jobs which execute on our production and development environment. We have close to fifty plus applications and application owners who have their jobs scheduled using Stonebranch.

I do not have anything to add at the moment about needed improvements for Stonebranch because I am still learning the tool.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Stonebranch as nine.

I chose a nine for Stonebranch because I feel it is not as user-friendly compared to other tools. To be frank, Control-M is more visually appealing, and the monitoring of alerts is much easier in Control-M.

We did not purchase Stonebranch through the Azure Marketplace. We have our VMs in Azure, but we are not using the SaaS component of Stonebranch. I feel that would be much more user-friendly, but currently, we are not using it from Azure; we just have a VM in Azure and are deploying it there.

I do not have anything at the moment regarding other improvements needed for Stonebranch.

Since I am not directly involved in the pricing and licensing which is handled by a different team, what I have been shared is that compared to other market products, it is much cheaper and has a lot of features.

I would advise others looking into using Stonebranch that it is a very modern solution in the workload automation industry and it has a lot of features, especially in that we can build our own API and push it to the repositories. The SaaS component is also a very good feature so that we do not have to worry about maintaining the infrastructure for Stonebranch, and we can just focus on our daily business scheduling of jobs and working. In every way, it is a very much improved product in the industry.

I do not have any additional thoughts about Stonebranch. As of now, I am very happy using Stonebranch and eager to learn all the new features available. I am looking forward to a good relationship with Stonebranch because we are going to migrate many workload scheduling tools across our multiple regions.

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

For our daily work, we use Stonebranch to see that if the workflow is going smoothly without any troubles, and if there is any kind of issue that if any job is running beyond its expected limits, then we use to check if there is any data issue or not. If there is any kind of a data issue, then we monitor it and check with the appropriate team to see how to fix that issue.

Stonebranch is a very handy application, and the best feature is the orchestration.

Stonebranch impacts our organization positively as it is very useful in terms of its pricing and overall user interface. We can easily find anything with a small search, and searches work without any issues. The updates and the experience are very smooth without any glitches.

Stonebranch helps in reducing the times and the errors, and as a team, we can coordinate very smoothly with each other because the runtime is very fast, ensuring that each and every member is having similar experiences without any bugs. Stonebranch helps us to troubleshoot any kind of issue without any delay.

Stonebranch saves a lot of time when it comes to watching the overall workflows because we can watch overall workflows in one go and search multiple tasks in one session. It also requires fewer employees to search a particular task and to see a particular workflow because we can search multiple tasks and triggers in one session, making it very useful.

Stonebranch can be improved by making it more familiar to other tech geeks. We can add various other features such as AI to improve its accessibility because in today's world, AI is more important than manual things. If it uses AI, it will be improved.

We can add a search bar in Stonebranch and enhance the searches, such as if we need to add more filters. The filtration options are very limited, so we can add more filter options so that we can search out any specific task or job very easily. Apart from that, an AI assistant will be very beneficial for the future.

I have been using Stonebranch for over five years.

Stonebranch is very stable, and there are no bugs or glitches, so it is a perfect tool in terms of stability.

Stonebranch is a very scalable application, and we can use it on various integrations and applications. We are using it on Informatica and various other Jenkins jobs to trigger from Stonebranch, making it a very scalable tool as far as scalability is concerned.

There are very rare scenarios that we actually face any issues, but I can recall one scenario where we had to call customer support, and the service executive was very prompt in providing a solution. We really appreciate the overall service quality of Stonebranch.

Stonebranch is our first software, and we are very happy with it.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of Stonebranch has been that it is a very affordable tool, and our organization has been using it for the last overall ten years, so we are very happy with this product as per the pricing is concerned.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing Stonebranch, but along with Stonebranch, we are using Informatica.

Stonebranch is a very handy tool, especially if you want to orchestrate your product and are looking for something very scalable and stable; Stonebranch is very useful. It is one of the best solutions out there in the market. I give this product a review rating of ten.