Share your experience using CA XCOM Data Transport

I have used Control-M for database, SAP, web services, and file transfers. Additionally, I use it for normal scripts.

We had a customer who was using cron jobs to handle their workflows. With cron jobs, they faced problems related to SLA. When something failed, it took them time to identify issues, and sometimes they missed incidents which resulted in P1 situations in production environments. They transitioned to Control-M based on its features related to SLA and workflow visibility, which significantly helped them.

The GUI is the best feature, along with the file transfer capabilities. These are the two main components I use on a daily basis. Through GUI or CCM, we get control of all the components, which I really appreciate. 

While I cannot specify exact business impact numbers, frequent P1 incidents in the production environment typically indicate monetary losses.

While it can be used for DevOps purposes, we haven't used it for that purpose.

Support is one aspect that they really need to improve. Though we receive support for current versions, the challenge arises when working in large organizations with legacy workflows or applications, typically 10 to 20% of the total. 

When these legacy environments have outdated OS and face production issues from a Control-M perspective, BMC support states it's not supported anymore. Recently, we needed documentation for an old component during a production issue, and their response was that they couldn't help as it wasn't supported. Documentation should be maintained for all versions since they provided the application.

I have a total experience of around 19 years, with approximately 13 or 14 years specifically with Control-M. I started with 6.4.

Control-M is pretty stable. There are occasional issues, yet nothing major, and most issues are not caused by the software itself.

In on-premises environments, scalability features are limited. Planning and resource allocation must be done at the start. If workflows increase from 1,000 to 10,000, redeployment of the application becomes necessary. Database and application node planning must account for anticipated workflow volumes from the beginning.

We have approximately 1,000 users.

Support is an area that requires significant improvement.

Positive

I haven't migrated from other solutions.

I have limited experience with TWS. The TWS version we used was primarily command-line based, and its GUI capabilities were not comparable to Control-M.

The deployment process is straightforward. The environment's complexity affects deployment time rather than the software itself. Basic DB and Linux box installation takes approximately a week. The planning phase for system connectivity and task execution locations requires additional time.

The system requires maintenance with patches released once or twice yearly.

We are implementing this as a customer.

I can provide a general perspective on ROI. Manual tasks require human effort and are prone to errors, which Control-M helps eliminate. However, I cannot provide specific ROI figures.

Control-M is expensive and not cheap at all.

I have conducted technical assessments for several market solutions, though not in great depth. We explored alternative solutions due to Control-M's high cost rather than its technical limitations. My assumption is that all current enterprise-level scheduling or workload automation software provides similar technical functionalities and features.

We're a customer.

I would recommend Control-M for its performance capabilities. While cost-cutting is prevalent everywhere and Control-M's cost is on the higher side, from a technical perspective, it ranks among the top three solutions. 

The review rating for Control-M is nine out of ten.

My use case with Control-M spans three different organizations, primarily in the banking domain throughout my experience, working with major banks. Now I am in the telecom industry, where major telecom companies use Control-M for their operations.

The best features in Control-M include the ability to schedule scripts at any time, and if they are not running, there is an option to run them again without any manual intervention in case any execution fails, plus you can get failure logs and alerts directly if a job fails. 

It's a user-friendly tool. I've used other solutions which are not as user-friendly. It's easy to understand.

It is simple to integrate Control-M with technologies for your data operations and DevOps processes, especially as we upgrade this tool to the latest versions, providing more options for integration with cloud solutions. It is not very challenging if you are skilled with Control-M and integration aspects, such as using Control-M APIs to connect your applications and action on jobs or run scripts through API calls as well.

I see major improvements from Control-M, specifically since I started with version seven, and now we are on version 9.21. I have seen major changes, such as transitioning from a thick-client version to an online self-service version accessible through the Internet, alongside multiple UI changes.

Currently, there is room for improvement in the cost aspect compared to other tools. Control-M could be more user-friendly, and while it is user-friendly now, it can be improved to be more intuitive.

I have been using Control-M for the last ten years.

I experience very little downtime with Control-M and would rate its stability eight out of ten.

Regarding scalability, I would rate it around eight out of ten.

Control-M requires maintenance, and we need support from BMC; it would be beneficial if BMC invested more in providing customer support to users. 

I assess BMC services for helping my team with migrations and overall strategy as very good; when we raise cases to them, they help us understand and provide valuable feedback, and I would rate this support an eight out of ten. My relationship with BMC is more transactional.

Positive

I did not migrate from Broadcom, CA, Redwood, or any other similar solutions in any of those companies.

The deployment is a bit complex. 

It has saved us time and money.

When compared with other tools, Control-M is a bit costly. That said, it provides the best results, and since it is very user-friendly, investing in it gives you great outcomes. I'd rate the pricing seven out of ten.

If I compare Control-M with other solutions or vendors on the market, it stands out for its security and is the best in the market as of now due to its functionality and cost-effectiveness, which usually comes from the total number of executions in your organization, making it a great choice for daily activities.

I would recommend Control-M to other users. Although it is slightly more expensive on the market compared to other tools, it is very user-friendly and includes multiple features, such as integration with other applications. 

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Control-M a seven.