No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Rocket Zeke vs Stonebranch comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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 Scheduler
Sponsored
Ranking in Workload Automation
3rd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
54
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Rocket Zeke
Ranking in Workload Automation
29th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Stonebranch
Ranking in Workload Automation
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Workload Automation category, the mindshare of JAMS Scheduler is 3.5%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rocket Zeke is 1.4%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Stonebranch is 4.2%, down from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Workload Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
JAMS Scheduler3.5%
Stonebranch4.2%
Rocket Zeke1.4%
Other90.9%
Workload Automation
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2890770 - PeerSpot reviewer
Developer at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Centralized scheduling has improved automation and reduces manual monitoring for complex workflows
The best features JAMS Scheduler offers are centralized job scheduling, dependency management, and monitoring. I also appreciate the alerts and retry options because they help us handle failures without constantly checking jobs manually. Centralized scheduling makes it easier to manage all our jobs from one place instead of maintaining multiple schedulers or scripts. Dependency management is especially useful for chaining workflows because JAMS Scheduler can automatically trigger the next job only when the required previous step completes successfully. Another useful feature is the monitoring and alerting. If a scheduled job fails or runs longer than expected, we can quickly identify it and take action, which is particularly helpful for production support and reducing manual monitoring. JAMS Scheduler has helped quite a bit with identifying common job failures, missed schedules, dependency issues, and execution errors. The alerts and job history make it easier to identify the failure point and take corrective action without manually checking every workflow. JAMS Scheduler's code-driven automation has been useful for handling more complex scheduling logic and workflows that go beyond simple time-based triggers. It is important for us because we can combine scripts, dependencies, conditions, and parameters to support different production scenarios without creating too much manual intervention.
Daniele Folatelli - PeerSpot reviewer
Mainframe Systems Programmer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
It's a reliable solution that gets a lot done quickly
I work a lot with the support side when there are issues. I see a lot of confusion about the various licenses. The licensing model is somewhat complicated. The product license has to be installed. Sometimes, when a license is expiring and I need a new one, it's hard to understand where those licenses are in the guest support portal. I've discussed this with ASG, and they've acknowledged that it's too complicated. It has had an impact. It's not that the product doesn't work, but we get messages from the user worried that the product will run out of support and their whole operation will be affected.
Saktheeswaran Ravichandran - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I appreciate JAMS for its readily available templates that allow me to create and deliver stand-up presentations within minutes quickly."
"Getting JAMS in place was a game changer for us back then."
"Our company is based on data. Everything we do is data-driven, so it has been very valuable having one place where we can process all of the data and do batch schedules with chunks of data."
"I didn't know about JAMS because I don't have a person with any challenges with the purchase administration. The feature or the user interface is user-friendly because of the readable icons or very descriptive icons. Though I'm a beginning user of JAMS, I had no issues using it."
"This feature helps my team day-to-day by running hundreds and hundreds of jobs on JAMS in a timely fashion, which is extremely important and sensitive, providing a lot of reporting to the entire firm and beyond."
"I find the historical tracking feature of JAMS invaluable for reviewing past events."
"The alerting in it is really targeted... you can set specific alerting so that if jobs in a given folder fail, certain people are alerted. You can also set security at the folder level, so that only people in those areas can go set them. That means that the alerting and security can be set at a very granular level."
"While I appreciate the other features, the agent stands out for its ease of installation and configuration for JAMS monitoring."
"Two features are valuable. One is Rocket Zeke's ability to integrate with the mainframe, which is the main processor using the agent. It works on any computer, so users don't have to wait. They can use their laptop or any other way to connect and securely access all the necessary information. The other valuable feature is automation, which is an integral part of batch processing."
"For support, as compared with GoAnywhere, Stonebranch is more supportive because they respond quickly."
"We like that it has GUI and is not just a command line."
"Among the three, Stonebranch was the best product for us, and that is why we selected it."
"The ability to monitor tasks that are on the open-system side as well as our mainframe side gives us a one-window view of all our processes."
"It runs unbelievably good because when we installed it, it ran perfectly."
"Stonebranch is a very good product, and I would definitely recommend it."
"It really helped with the heavy lifting of the integration and scheduling gaps within our MDM solution and other systems."
"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."
 

Cons

"Right now there's not much of an Azure integration with JAMS at the moment directly because we run separate pipelines."
"For scalability, I would rate it as seven because when we have a huge volume, sometimes the tool is not so responsive."
"We have had a lot of people working from home who can't always connect to the JAMS server. We use VPN, as most companies do, and we have it set up so that everybody can access the JAMS server. But many times, our people cannot access it... JAMS could do a better job of telling you what the problem is when you try to log in to the server."
"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."
"The monitoring of the JAMS product and its performance is an area of concern for me."
"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."
"They recently switched to subscription-based pricing, which increased."
"For the most part, JAMS is very stable. Occasionally, if you leave multiple windows open over a period of time, it is necessary to end that task and restart."
"I work a lot with the support side when there are issues. I see a lot of confusion about the various licenses. The licensing model is somewhat complicated. The product license has to be installed. Sometimes, when a license is expiring and I need a new one, it's hard to understand where those licenses are in the guest support portal. I've discussed this with Rocket Zeke, and they've acknowledged that it's too complicated."
"More number of FAQs should be provided because I found it hard to configure when I started using this tool."
"It can be hard to manage the task monitor."
"There is a component called the OMS, which is the message broker. We rely on infrastructure, resiliency, and availability for that piece. If that could change to be highly available just as a software component, so that we don't have to provide the high-available storage, etc. for it, that would be a plus. It would just be cheaper to run."
"I think Stonebranch could be improved by creating a command line tool so that Mainframe teams can control everything without using a web browser."
"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."
"It can't handle negative written codes."
"There is room for improvement with its connectivity with the Microsoft SRS system. It is very weak."
"The API's need to fully meet the capabilities of the user interface. Better support of workload balancers (F5)."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing model for JAMS is straightforward and based on the number of agents, not the number of jobs you run. It's cheap and fairly simple."
"Fortra's JAMS pricing structure has deteriorated significantly since its acquisition by Fortra."
"For what it does, the product is priced very well."
"The product is reasonably priced, and we don't have any add-ons."
"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."
"In the end, you'll find that it's really worth the price. There is some sticker shock, but it's worth every dime."
"It's expensive, to be honest, but it does the job."
"This is a good product at a fair price."
"I don't make purchasing decisions, but the decision-makers tell me they don't switch to other solutions because this one has the price they need. Pricing is part of their decision to stick with this product."
"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."
"Outside of licensing fees, there aren't any other costs."
"Stonebranch is cheaper than Control-M, so many companies are using Stonebranch."
"The price of the solution is at a medium level compared to the competition."
"When we reviewed this solution against other vendors, Stonebranch blew everybody out of the water in terms of cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
35%
Construction Company
10%
Retailer
9%
Insurance Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Insurance Company
6%
Outsourcing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise18
Large Enterprise29
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for JAMS?
The pricing, setup cost, and licensing for JAMS Scheduler are favorable.
What needs improvement with JAMS?
One area of improvement I see for JAMS Scheduler is making the user interface more intuitive for new users, especiall...
What is your primary use case for JAMS?
My main use case for JAMS Scheduler is scheduling daily RPA jobs, such as running an invoice process automation after...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?
I would rate the pricing for the product between six to seven, considering one is high and ten is low.
What needs improvement with Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?
The self-service automation access currently available in Stonebranch could benefit from added features. While it is ...
What is your primary use case for Stonebranch Universal Automation Center?
My major use case for Stonebranch is job scheduling and orchestration. I usually create major orchestration workflows...
 

Also Known As

No data available
ASG Zeke
Stonebranch Universal Automation Center
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Teradata, Arconic, General Dynamics, Yum!, CVS Health, Comcast, Ghiradelli, & Boston’s Children’s Hospital
Reliance, Raley's, Oney, Primerica, Postbank
Nissan, Coop, United Supermarkets, Groupon, CSC, Orbitz, Johnson & Johnson, BMW, Qantas.
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC, Broadcom, JAMS Software and others in Workload Automation. Updated: October 2026.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.