What users are saying about

ActiveBatch

7 Ratings

ActiveBatch

7 Ratings
Score 8.6 out of 101

Puppet Enterprise

40 Ratings
Score 7.8 out of 101

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

ActiveBatch

I used to work in a company that only used SQL Server Agent to handle imports and exports of ETL data. ActiveBatch is far more powerful and easy to use, so I definitely would recommend it. I would think of three questions: (1) Do you handle a large volume of exports and imports in a given week? (2) Do you need a lot of configurable options, such as with scheduling? (3) Do you utilize a variety of ETL processing tools (such as GlobalScape EFT and Microsoft SSIS) but want one tool to work with them all? If yes to those questions, then ActiveBatch would well fit the bill for you then.
No photo available

Puppet Enterprise

Our company deploys across multiple data centers and cloud providers with a need for consistency, scalability and repeatable results. Puppet allows us to achieve this in a way that would be very tedious and time consuming and with very little confidence that the end result would be a "known good" state if we did not utilize the power of Puppet.
Mark Gargiulo profile photo

Feature Rating Comparison

Workload Automation

ActiveBatch
6.9
Puppet Enterprise
Multi-platform scheduling
ActiveBatch
8.1
Puppet Enterprise
Central monitoring
ActiveBatch
8.5
Puppet Enterprise
Logging
ActiveBatch
5.0
Puppet Enterprise
Alerts and notifications
ActiveBatch
7.0
Puppet Enterprise
Analysis and visualization
ActiveBatch
5.4
Puppet Enterprise
Application integration
ActiveBatch
7.5
Puppet Enterprise

Pros

  • ActiveBatch does Microsoft SQL jobs well, providing centralized configurations.
  • The scheduling options and flexibility is very good in ActiveBatch.
  • The ability to restrict ActiveBatch users to specific areas of the application is easy to manage.
No photo available
  • Automation of redundant tasks
  • Abstraction of complex tasks
  • Integrates well with other community/open-source projects (e.g. Cobbler, Foreman)
Charles Inglese profile photo

Cons

  • The Oracle connectivity and error detection is challenging and doesn't always work for us.
  • The UI for administration is overwhelming as first and could be simplified.
No photo available
  • Decrease the learning curve.
  • Introduce ways easy ways to write Puppet code to those who have not done it.
  • Introduce a UI for those who are fearful of command line.
Ethan Tran profile photo

Alternatives Considered

N/A - It was already in place when I was on the scene, but like I said earlier it is much more powerful than SQL Server Agent and probably anything we would've come up with from scratch using .Net. However if your needs are small and traffic is light, then maybe SQL Server Agent or something smaller and less powerful (and less expensive) than ActiveBatch would work just fine.
No photo available
I have not used any other Configuration Management System since cfengine back in about 2007 so I have little current input on alternatives to Puppet having never used them, though Chef seems to have gained some traction as has Ansible.
Mark Gargiulo profile photo

Return on Investment

  • I have not been involved in the purchase or contract negotiation of our Active Batch purchase, therefore am unable to comment on the ROI.
No photo available
  • Less time spent doing simple repetitive server maintenance tasks.
  • Server to Admin ratio is dramatically increased when using Puppet automation.
  • Initial setup and implementation can be time consuming if you need/want a "zero impact" integration.
Mark Gargiulo profile photo

Pricing Details

ActiveBatch

General
Free Trial
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
Entry-level set up fee?
Optional
Additional Pricing Details

Puppet Enterprise

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details