BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer Reviews

I am a partner and an implementer for Control-M. Once purchased by my clients, I implement this solution and provide daily support for this scheduling tool.

This solution could be improved by making it possible to better control GUI when interfacing with other systems. 

Secondly, this solution is very expensive compared to others in the market. Previously it was the only solution in our country to offer this kind of functionality. However, technology has caught up and many competitors offer the same at a lower price.  

.

This is a stable solution with very few bugs, whether being used for 1 or 20,000 jobs. 

Their L2-support Is not that good and often our team have managed to solve problems which their team could not. However, if there's a problem that needs to be escalated to Level 3, for example, then their engineering support is very good.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

The primary use case of this solution is for when you want certain cases to be executed, like file transfers when it is business to business. The solution is mostly used in the banking and finance domain. We are premium partners with BMC. 

This is a flagship product. The solution offers every feature that a customer could want, whether it's the architecture or the use case. It supports all file transfers. 

The solution used to have a graphical user interface for reporting. That is lacking now and it's unfortunate because customers liked it and it's no longer available. In order to compete with IT service desk management, they need to make the product more lightweight, more of a SaaS-based offering. If that were implemented they'd get back to the top. Currently, authentication and authorization portals are provided only in the case of external uploads but that should change.

I've been using this solution for 13 years. 

The solution is stable and provides good performance. 

This solution is easily scalable.

The initial setup is simple and takes about a day. We provide all the implementation and  maintenance services. The solution is generally for medium to enterprise size companies. 

Licensing costs can be negotiated depending on what the count is or how big the implementation is. I've seen even small banks using the solution and I believe licensing costs are reasonable. 

I think it's important to have knowledge about the infrastructure required, and the right data needs to be provided to the implementation partner. Once that's done, the solution is quite flexible to accommodate all requirements.

I rate the solution nine out of 10. 

We use it for one-to-many and point-to-point security encryption. I started with version 6.2. After that, I used version 6.4, 7, 8, and 9. Currently, I am using version 9.20, which is a software as a service version. I deploy this solution on-premises and cloud.

Our customers find the self-service feature the most valuable. Control-M offers great value to businesses by providing an option to see different flows and control and orchestrate the sequence of the execution.

It is easy to use and integrate with different solutions. It is a good solution that is easy to implement and deliver.

Their support can be improved. I would like them to provide support in Spanish and have more knowledge.

I have been working with this solution for eight years.

It is stable. We haven't found any issues.

It has good scalability. Our clients are medium and big companies. Small companies cannot easily buy this solution because the cost is high.

Their technical support is good. It is easy to consult them, and they provide a lot of information about the reason for the issue. I would rate them an eight out of ten. I would like them to provide support in Spanish and have more knowledge.

It is very easy to set up. The deployment can take one to two months, but it depends on the number of tasks.

Its cost is high for small companies.

I would rate BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a nine out of ten. Our clients are happy with this solution.

The MFT product is for transferring files with external partners, and on-premises as well. We use it in both of these use cases. We're doing file transfer internally on our on-premises network, between sites or servers. Then, we also do that via a secure connection with an external partner or on a separate network. It is basically the same as file transfer over an FTP.

The most valuable feature is the integration with the workload automation solution.

It has a nice dashboard for loading up the file transfers, so it's easy to follow the success or failure rates of the operations. You get notified when transfers fail, which is an important feature.

At this time, you can receive file transfers but it is not possible to send them. Ideally, we also want to be able to send files using this solution.

Scalability is something that needs to be improved.

We have been using BMC Managed File Transfer for about one year. It is a relatively new product. We have been using the larger Control-M workload Automation for close to 15 years.

This is a stable solution.

This solution is not very scalable. It can handle a lot of traffic very easily and I think that small to medium-sized businesses will have no problem with it. However, if you want to set it up in a highly available environment and you need multiple sites then these kinds of options are not yet supported.

In our company, there is only a team of a few people using this product. They are engineers and are responsible for the file transfer functionality.

I have been in contact with BMC technical support, although it was for the workload automation tool and not specifically for the MFT product.

Technical support is responsive and I would rate our overall experience with them as moderate.

Prior to using this solution, we were using Axway B2Bi. We are still currently using it, alongside with the BMC MFT product.

The initial setup is straightforward. It took perhaps a week to deploy.

We did the deployment ourselves.

This product is not feature-rich but it is a solid file-transfer solution. I would say that the features they have now are very good, although the product is not complete because you cannot send files.

I would recommend it but at the same time, I think that everybody needs to test it and see if it meets their needs. The supported features are very good but obviously, if there is a protocol or something else that you need that isn't supported then it will not be suitable.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.