BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer Reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Positive

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Our primary use cases of Managed File Transfer are monitoring jobs, transferring files, and doing some encryption and decryption. We work on insurance-based clients, so we have a lot of files that come in every day. The business does some manipulation on that, which, in turn, reflects in the New York Stock Exchange, so we use Managed File Transfer for all SLEs and things like that. 

We are using the version before the latest update. This solution is deployed on-premise. 

One of the most valuable features is the encryption and decryption which happens within the job. Usually, with other tools, we do a file transfer and then we have to encrypt and decrypt it, but in BMC Managed File Transfer, we can do it in one go. Another great feature is the ability to manipulate a file during a transfer. I think that with the new version, they also have a dashboard which gives a GUI-based view of what's getting transferred—how many files, how much time, and all that—so, from a single point, you can look at what's happening within the organization. If someone asks, "Where is this file?" or how much time it takes, you can just go to the dashboard, search for that file, and your information is there. 

Managed File Transfer could be improved with some more cloud features. Things have been moving to cloud, and the modules of AWS and Azure are there in Control-M, but we still end up writing codes to do that. If there were some embedded modules, it would be really helpful. 

As for additional features, we have been looking to integrate with SharePoint. This feature is not available. 

I have been using this solution for 12 years now. 

Managed File Transfer seems pretty stable. At times when it is not, the vendor does release some patches and stuff like that, which we might end up installing, which helps with the stability. We had faced some issues and reached out to them, and they said that there was a newer version that we had to update it ourselves, so we did that and it was fine. 

For maintenance, it requires you to apply the latest fix packs and patches, while at the same time keeping the database updated. We handle maintenance on our own. We have around eight people in our company who are working with Managed File Transfer. 

This solution is definitely scalable. 

BMC technical support is really good. Their turnover time is within one hour, which is pretty good. 

I worked for about six months with two similar tools, one of which was called JAMS. JAMS was more related to Windows, whereas with Control-M, it doesn't really matter which operating system or which environment you're trying to connect to. So with any distributed system, it's a very easy setup—with others, I have felt that it was a task, since it took some time to do. 

The initial setup is a simple process now. With the new versions, it's pretty simple—depending on the size of it, I believe it should take somewhere between twenty minutes to one hour to deploy. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

The pricing of Control-M is a bit on the higher end, compared to any other tools that we have seen. Pricing will depend on the sales approach and agreement between the companies, but I think they give some discounts. They have their standards, but the pricing can be negotiable, and they are flexible regarding certain features. 

I rate Control-M an eight out of ten, so there's some scope for input. 

To those considering implementation, I would advise you to have a good plan of what you need to set up—what does your environment really look like? Because to change your environment or database midway into something is a hefty task. So before starting it, I would advise you to check what your company's database looks like. Some use Oracle, some use Microsoft SQL, but BMC comes with a default one as well. It's better to plan that out because changing it midway is a task in and of itself. 

The primary use case of this solution is workload automation in a batch environment, in clients' environments. This tool extends support to a number of applications and can be integrated with plugins like PeopleSoft and Informatica. It's a centralized monitoring system, so from the controlling client, you can monitor the entire batch environment of your client. It can also be used for disaster recovery. 

This solution is deployed both on-prem and on the cloud. We are using the latest version. 

This solution has a vast amount of features and with every new release, there are lots of new features introduced. The application has high availability—we have multiple customers and it's highly available. On an application level, if something goes down with the primary, then the application goes over to the secondary, so it's very, very easy to do disaster recovery. 

From an application integration point of view, it has a lot of APIs, rich APIs. Every month, they are releasing new APIs and new updates, like Java, but more than that. Now they are introducing a couple more APIs, which you can use to integrate your controlling environment with any applications you want. 

The only improvement I would suggest is the license pricing should be a little reduced. Apart from that, I don't see anything else as a major concern with the tool right now. 

I have been using this solution for more than 11 years now. 

This is a stable product. 

This solution is scalable. We have more than 200 clients using Control-M.

I've been working in the production environment for more than 11 years, but we created a high priority ticket for BMC when we first introduced it. They went all the way to resolve it and help us find a solution. Not only that, but they also helped us identify and analyze the root cause. In terms of customer support, BMC is at the top, in my rating. 

I have raised seven tickets and, within 15 minutes, we would get a call from their technical support. They never leave us in the middle of an issue, they go all the way to help us resolve it. Their support is the best. 

The installation is pretty straightforward. Anybody who has just two or three years of experience in this tool can do the installation. Their documentation is really nice. If you have a little experience in these tools and installation, then you can easily install Control-M. The installation took 10-15 minutes, maximum, and you can do it yourself. 

I implemented this solution myself. 

The licensing is a bit more expensive than other tools, so if a client is focused on the cost, that would be something to consider. The licensing should be cheaper. 

I don't have experience in AutoSys, but my team also operates in AutoSys. 

I rate BMC Control-M a nine out of ten, because of the stability and the customer support. The only reason I wouldn't rate it a ten out of ten is because their licensing is a bit expensive. Otherwise, BMC Control-M is the best tool I have ever worked on. 

I would absolutely recommend this solution to new clients. Lots of new clients are converting to this Control-M tool because of the stability and the support model. So I wouldn't only recommend it externally, but, internally, we also recommend it to our clients. If they can compromise on cost a little, then this is the best tool to go with. 

We are using the solution for maintaining the infrastructure jobs like database Genesys and NICE. All jobs have been integrated into a single frame and a BMC Control-M readme page. Basically, we create jobs and modify the jobs. We have to analyze if any jobs fail. We settle the issues so that the jobs are up to date and should run.

The solution can communicate with the cluster. It can redirect any alarms or failures, and we remediate those actions.

We create new job scenarios and workarounds. We have special access to incidents and monitor controller operations. 

The solution is good in terms of working with other products. The integration is useful. 

Once you understand the solution, the initial setup isn't too bad. 

The solution is stable. 

It's scalable. 

We need the updates to be able to maintain interoperability. We still want to be able to verify testing in production and the environment and want upgrades to go smoothly so as not to disrupt our applications. The more seamless it can be, the better remediation will go. 

We'd like it to be easier to maintain the administrative side. Transferring files should be easier. There are a lot of dependencies. We'd also like there to be less space consumption.

There's a bit of a learning curve for new users.

When we pull job applications, if we configure multiple tenants under multiple environments with a single frame while we are logging into the applications, it sometimes freezes and takes too much time. 

I've used the solution for about one year.

From what I have seen so far, it is stable and reliable. 

We do have frequent version upgrades and maintenance and therefore haven't seen many issues.

It's a scalable product. I'd rate it eight out of ten in the ability to scale. 

We have 11 people on our team and about four people who handle administration and maintenance tasks. We're in four regions: Australia, Singapore, India and New Zealand. In these regions, there are two configured clusters - one in Australia and one in New Zealand. 

We have an administrative team that has the privilege of raising technical support. We will do the Genesys part, however, for BMC, they run the people. They will take care of coordination with the vendor and the business unit.

We use a lot of different solutions, including Genesys, NICE, Control-M ESPL, WFM, and workforce management. All are interoperable.

The company has used this solution for about seven years, and I have only been around for one. I'm not sure why they first initiated usage.

The initial setup is easy once you have some experience. It can be somewhat difficult otherwise. 

We have four people that are able to handle maintenance tasks.  

Once our teams have tested and validated the scenarios are working fine, then they will move from Genesys into services. Once Genesys services have been integrated, Genesys engineers will come and will monitor everyday operations for Control-M. If they identify any files or any jobs that have instability, they'll look for a permanent fix.

We are mediators between the vendor and customers. 

We are using around version nine. I'm not sure of the exact version number. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I do need more time with the product. However, I haven't seen the product causing many issues. It's been sustainable, and we've liked having all operations in one single cluster.

We do a lot of file transfers. We've anywhere from 19,000 to 20,000 transfers on a monthly basis. Some of them are internal transfers, such as scraping data from a database in one application and then taking that data and porting it over to or transferring it over to another server that houses another type of application that ingests that file. That type of work is happening all day and all night.

The most valuable thing is that it works as advertised. We don't take advantage of some of the features like we should because that's not our primary role and responsibility in the environment that we manage. We only want to make sure that a file gets to where it was supposed to go, or we pull in a file and it comes to us correctly. There are some GUI interfaces that we take a look at that tell us the number of transfers and the servers that are being utilized the most for capacity management and performance management. That's about it.

It's not something that I use every day. The supervisor of operations uses it, and as long as he's not complaining about it, I'm good. We're only using the functionality that we need to use. However, we've had an opportunity to work with one application owner here who wanted to do some transfers in the cloud and things like that. I know that there were some challenges on that, but they finally got all that set up. There was a learning curve though.

BMC went from what they called AFT to MFT about four years ago. We purchased that module and converted all of our AFT jobs to MFT. It didn't change the transfer methodology technically, but added some bells and whistles, a GUI interface, and management features for error tracking, success tracking, and setting up the transfers themselves through Control-M.

Its stability is great. There are no problems.

They were good. I'd rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

It was pretty straightforward. I got a good team that took care of all that. We don't have any complaints.

We did it ourselves. We had it done on a Saturday, and it was rocking and rolling that Saturday evening. 

It was a little bit pricey. They were proud of the product. A particular module was not free. However, BMC was able to negotiate that particular module into our whole contract itself without having to negotiate an individual price for that module. All that was included in a one-time negotiation, and we've signed a five-year contract on that. I haven't had any other opportunities to work on pricing or anything like that with BMC. I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of pricing.

I'd advise looking at the roles and responsibilities of your team and your IT topology and assessing whether or not this product would fit into your basic production environment and/or some type of standalone system. There are multitudes of products out there, and some people even use homegrown products. It's based on your business needs and how you want to meet the needs of the end users and the consumers of the file transfers. 

I'd rate it a nine out of ten. We haven't had any issues with it. 

I use BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for file transfer management, which is its primary function.

What I like best about BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is that it makes transfers more secure and faster. My experience with it is good.

I also like that it has personal dashboards.

I also found the functionality of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer better, plus it has a recovery feature during failed file transfers.

An area for improvement in BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is integration. It should be compatible with more solutions. BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer should have integrations with newer applications as well.

I have fifteen years of experience with BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer, and I'm still using it.

I didn't see any stability issues from BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has good scalability.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has good technical support, as it has different engineers and consultants who resolve the issues.

My rating for BMC support is nine out of ten.

Positive

I chose BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer over the other solution because I know more about it, and it works better in terms of function.

Setting up BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is easy, so it's a ten out of ten.

As BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is a module, you install, implement, and run it in one day. It could take three weeks if you still need to install the solution that BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is on.

You'll get ROI from BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer after using it a few times rather than once because the initial cost is high. With this module, you can reduce mistakes and not lose money, so you'll see ROI within one year or less from BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is relatively inexpensive. It has reasonable pricing. What you pay for is the task or job, and as it's a module, it's complimentary, so you save about twenty percent of the job cost. For example, if the job costs $100, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer will cost $20.

Pricing-wise, the module is an eight out of ten.

I'm a software consultant and implemented BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for different customers.

I've worked with older versions, from 6.4 to the latest version, 20.2, of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer.

Deploying the module requires two engineers and one project manager who'll check the results of the project execution.

My advice to others looking into using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is that it's good to implement if you don't want to experience file transfer problems. The module has a tier that lets you transfer many files between different servers, so BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is essential in file transfer and file management projects. You must make sure that you follow the steps on how to use the module.

Overall, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is a nine out of ten because it's easy to understand and use, plus it has a lot of benefits to customers.

Our company uses the solution for workload automations such as application schedules or file transfer jobs for customers. For multiple jobs, we schedule the second job to execute based on the output of the first job. Basically, workflows are defined and centralized.

We implemented and provide ongoing support for three to four major banking customers. 

The job scheduling and file transfer are two major, important features. 

The work routine manager is useful. 

The solution is easy to use. 

The solution should improve the out-of-the box conversion tool for migrations so the percentage result isn't so low. We have many use cases where we migrate from different vendors like Otter. When we see the result for main frames, the percentage is low. A higher percentage would give us more confidence. We want to share good results with our customers. 

There is no option to deploy agents from Control-M itself so they have to be installed manually and that is time consuming. BMC does provide a separate tool to deploy the software but it would be easier to do from the solution's controller. 

I have been using the solution for ten years. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is scalable so scalability is rated a nine out of ten. 

Technical support is good. First, customers reach out to us and we troubleshoot. If we cannot resolve an issue, then we raise a ticket. Support fixes the issue or escalates it to the next level or engineering.

The setup is straightforward and not complicated. 

We implement the solution for customers. An on-premises implementation can be completed in one day or faster depending on the customer's infrastructure. Agent deployments are what take time. 

We install the agent on one to five packets, prepare the SOP, share it with the customer, and ask them to install it. If the customer has an existing automation tool for deploying software, then we give them the bundle. If we are providing the BMC solution, then we create a package for the agent and deploy for the customer. 

Yearly licenses are based on the number of jobs. 

I definitely recommend the solution for automating manual workloads. You get good visibility for jobs and a dashboard to maintain things. There are no challenges and all of our customers are happy with the solution. 

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

It is used for file transfer, both inbound and outbound, including B2B.

Dashboard and recovery are the features I found most valuable in the solution.

I think that in the latest version, they have already improved. We still have to work on the latest one since we are still installing it. So we have not completed the installation. Post that, I think we'll see what needs improvement.

We have some issues on the SAP side of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer. When I talk about non-SAP and SAP sides, I think with large volumes, one needs to install multiple agents. So that is something which should not be there. But at times, it is recommended by BMC. So, there are some stability issues when it comes to SAP side. The aforementioned details can be considered for improvement.

I have been using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for ten years. They released the latest version two days ago, and we are going to upgrade it to the latest version.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

It is a standard pre-requisite that if we grow, then we have to double your CPs and other stuff. So, scalability is not an issue.

Since we are using the enterprise version, there are maybe more than 100 users that are concurrently logged in to the application.

We have used BMC's technical support, and we found it to be great. BMC has very good knowledge articles and other stuff, so that is good.

The initial setup is simple. Last time, it took around one and a half or two and a half hours to get the whole installation and migration done. So, now it can be done in less than one hour. BMC provides an AMIGO plan, and we follow that for deployment.

We handle multiple customers. So, the staff needed for the deployment and maintenance really depends on the number of customers.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it since it is good to use.

There are some stability issues when it comes to SAP side, and hence I rate the product a nine out of ten. However, considering the Non-SAP side, I rate the overall product a ten out of ten. So, an average rating of the overall solution would be nine out of ten.