What is our primary use case?
We are a large insurance company that uses BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for batch processing and file transfers.
The batch is running on Linux, and it also has Windows components. Micro Focus is another system that we integrate with BMC Control-M.
How has it helped my organization?
It's an excellent method for organizing system change management. We use BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer to script our releases, which is probably the best use of it, but everyone would have a different answer. Because it is adaptable, we do a variety of things with it.
What is most valuable?
The file transfer feature is certainly useful.
The most important aspect is the ability to integrate different platforms.
We can run batches on mainframes, Linux, Windows, and all sorts of strange systems.
What needs improvement?
It can be difficult to stay on the right side of the licensing structure. Obviously, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer wants to profit from it, so it's difficult for us and not cheap.
It's probably more expensive than many of its competitors, but technically, there's really no downside.
They have caught up with most things at the moment; for security, they added SSL a few years ago, which helps a lot, and for file transfer, they will probably have to keep upgrading to add new protocols.
I am familiar with the password vaulting interface; they could probably add something for that because user IDs are a major issue in Control-M. You can now get systems that identify where the user IDs are, and you have to go there, and if you have the appropriate authorization, you can simply select a user ID and use it for the Control-M job. An interface to password vaulting would be useful, but they may already be doing so. I don't want to say this is a big missing piece only to discover that you did it two years ago.
Password vaulting would be a feature that should be included.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for 20 years.
We are working with version 9.19, but we are also testing version 9.20, which I believe is the most recent version.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is very stable. We use it for about 40,000 jobs per day, but I know of sites that run hundreds of thousands of jobs per day on a single Control-M server.
There is no problem in terms of stability. The only time I've had issues was when we used unusual servers to run the server on, and many years ago there were chips made by Intel called Itanium. That release was extremely buggy, but only about ten companies in the world used it.
Stability and reliability are not an issue if you stick to the mainstream releases. It has internal high availability, failover capability, and all of these features. It is trustworthy, and it has to be. If it fails, other businesses will cease operations, so it has to be 100% reliable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is very scalable.
We have an unusual setup in that we don't allow many users direct access. They must send requests to a small team that will create jobs for them. We only have about seven or eight direct users in the system, but the number of people who rely on it is in the thousands. It is a strange setup.
Most sites are set up in this manner, with people creating jobs on behalf of the larger community. We also have Control-M Self Service, which is a web-based tool that users can't really do anything with.
We simply have it set up so that they can only see the jobs as they execute, and that is our approach. Many businesses are reluctant to grant widespread access to Control-M because, while it can be a powerful security tool, it can also be a security risk if many people have it.
We are moving, and MicroStrategy is one of the systems we are integrating with Control-M as well as SAP. SAP users want to start using Control-M, there is nothing special for MicroStrategy, but there is a plugin for SAP that we will install and use in the future. But, it will probably be another year before we get around to fully incorporating it. It would be implemented during the PoC consideration phase.
How are customer service and support?
Technical support is good, but it depends on the situation. At times they restructure and assign you to other countries to communicate with. It's been very good when I've had to talk to people in the UK.
They have occasionally relocated us to Italy, where some of the technical knowledge may be lacking, but they have good systems.
They have BMC communities where other users can ask questions and interact. Technical support isn't bad; I'd give it a four because it's extremely helpful. They always do their best.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
It was the very first solution we worked with. We tried a few other options when I first looked at the market 20 years ago. We investigated Tivoli Workload Manager, or TWM, as an IBM product that we didn't think IBM was developing much at the time, but that turned out to be the case.
There is another product called title software that is a good competitor that we considered, but it wasn't as reliable as Control-M and all of the CA. Broadcom now owns everything.
They have a wide range of solutions in their portfolio, but I've never used any of them. CA-7, which is not a very old mainframe-based solution, could be compared to Control-M if you only had a mainframe, but it is incompatible with Unix and Windows. I have always worked with BMC Control-M and seen other schedulers, but it's always been BMC Control-M. I am trusting the software.
How was the initial setup?
It's a lot easier now; years ago, it wasn't; some of the releases were extremely complicated. They have worked hard to improve that. It can be distributed from a central location, which makes releasing new agents much easier now, and many of the issues that people had with installation have been resolved if you're using mainstream platforms. It is now a very simple install for Linux and Windows. On the Control-M server, you can run the installation process and choose an internal database supplied by BMC, typically Postgre. That is a much easier process to do now than it was 10, 15, years ago.
For the installation process, I would give it a four out of five, maybe a four and a half out of five. There are always things they can improve on, and sometimes you notice small details that aren't quite right. For an educated user, an easy install would be no problem. It's a simple procedure these days.
You can do the Control-M components in a couple of days, but it's what you've tied it into. Many people create their own scripts and then realize, oh, hang on. To keep up with the new Control-M, we must make changes. Two days for Control-M, but what you've tailored with it, if you're upgrading, obviously if it's a brand new install, then you start from scratch, hopefully with good conventions and standards to apply. However, if it is an upgrade, you may encounter issues where people say, "We hit some scripts on an agent, and now we have to go and figure out exactly what we were doing with those scripts." But that's not the Control-M side of the story; rather, it's what the users have done with it.
If you wanted to install a Control-M survey, you could do it within a day if you were to start from scratch, using all of the defaults.
When you start doing something different, you run into problems. But if it is simply to perform the standard installation, and you want to take the database that we'll give you, or you can have a medium-sized installation. You keep saying yes. You should be able to complete it in a single day.
What about the implementation team?
I have done a lot of installations over the years. I have sometimes been the third-party consultant who comes to companies to do the installation.
I believe you can do it in-house these days. The last one I did was in-house, but if you didn't have a lot of experience, you might want to find some specialized company to do it for you.
There are specialist partners who will do this for you, but I believe you should do it yourself because you will have control and will know what to do if someone comes in and asks you how is this configured. You will know because you will be the one who configured it.
We currently have about four people in the team who are responsible for Control-M. It's complicated because one of the guys is retiring, and I'm not sure if he'll be replaced. People looking after, I'd say four is a good number for a Control-M server. There are various components to it, such as Unix administration and database administration. Obviously, we have other people who are specialists in their fields to whom we could go and notify them that something has happened; and ask them to have a look. or to log in to check.
Four people would be the minimum number of people who would be responsible for a server.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is expensive.
Because we are part of a company with subsidiaries all over the world, I can only provide an answer for Switzerland. At the moment, we are probably paying around $120,000 per year just for ourselves. But, they are attempting to restructure so that they can offer a global license, because, across Europe, we obviously have about 30 different companies that all have to do the same things.
I speak with my colleague in Spain, who is experiencing the same issues with questions and having to visit the local BMC branch. We are all paying the same amount, but different countries have slightly different prices. In fact, prices can be quite high at times; obviously, Switzerland is not cheap.
Our headquarters are in Germany, and I believe it would be better if they simply forget about everyone doing their own thing, and use this product all over, get a license through Germany and use it globally.
Their pricing is really their weak point. It's pricey. I would give them a three or three and a half out of five for pricing and licensing.
People do get value out of it, and the work it does quickly pays for itself.
We pay for the file transfer module, which is an additional cost. They are not huge sums; perhaps you pay 20% more for the file transfer module, and you obviously have to host it on the platform. We are also paying for all the ancillary costs, but you have to pay extra Self Service, which is the website, which could be another 20% on top.
If you said $150,000 for the year, that's about right. We do it per agent rather than per job, which is the difference between the two on-premise models. You can do it per agent or per job, and we only have a few agents, each agent handles a large number of jobs.
What other advice do I have?
If you are starting from scratch, I would strongly recommend the Control-M Matrix, which is BMC's current SaaS solution. It is my understanding that it is a lot less expensive. I haven't used it myself, but based on the prices, it's likely to be nearly half the price of what we currently pay.
That simplifies your life because any upgrades to the Control-M server are handled by BMC. You go to the cloud, and they give you control and a server, and you don't have to worry about upgrades and such.
The disadvantage is that BMC now has your data, and they do not currently have a SaaS solution available in Switzerland. I believe it is only in the United States that things can become complicated, and BMC would then have complete control over your licensing.
They'd be able to see exactly how much you're using because we currently report how much we use. I believe it would work well for BMC because they would see a genuine reflection on usage and could then say, "You should be paying a lot more for what you are doing with the product."
The SaaS solution is called Matrix Control-M. If I were starting from scratch today, that's what I'd look at first, but some people might want to keep it on-premises.
Control-M obviously has agents that will work in the Amazon and whatever cloud, the Google Cloud, but that's a different story.
Where you can have it on-premises but have your agents somewhere in the cloud. That's not a solution I've considered, but I suppose it's becoming more popular.
I would rate BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a nine out of ten.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.