Appian RPA vs Control-M comparison

Appian and BMC are both solutions in the Process Automation category. Appian is ranked #26 with an average rating of 9.0, while BMC is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.6. Appian holds a 0.3% mindshare in PA, compared to BMC’s 4.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Appian users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 98% of BMC users who would recommend it.

Appian RPA

Read 1 Appian RPA review

427 Views
107 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Control-M

Read 123 Control-M reviews

21,830 Views
3,493 Comparison Views

98% willing to recommend

Appian RPA

Control-M

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Appian RPA and Control-M based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, BMC, Temporal Technologies and others in Process Automation.

To learn more, read our detailed Process Automation Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Process Automation

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 861,490 peers since 2012

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

Appian RPA

Ranking in Process Automation

26th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

8.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (15th)

Control-M

Ranking in Process Automation

2nd

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

123

Ranking in other categories

Managed File Transfer (MFT) (3rd), Workload Automation (1st)

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of Appian RPA is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Control-M is 4.6%, up from 4.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Process Automation

Featured Reviews

MikahSellers

Partner at a non-tech company with 1-10 employees

Efficient automation with substantial ROI and innovative UI enhancements

We were automating customer experience workflows for the contact center, including systems like CRM, service desk solutions, CCaaS solutions, and pulling data from ERPs It allowed us to reduce the level of effort to complete contact processes from one hundred fifty seconds to ninety seconds,…

Read full review

Ujjwal Sachdeva

Data scientist at Advarisk

Efficient automation and boosted workflow but needs better integration methods

Control-M is a bit faster compared to other solutions. The job and coding are easier. Also, my DevOps and Ops teams work collaboratively with it, enhancing its efficiency. The workflow is much easier compared to the ACS services we were using. Automation is more advanced, deployment is fast, and version control has been simplified.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Appian RPA is super easy to use, offering low code, no code capabilities."

"Most valuable feature would be the ability to detect and notify when a process has not completed successfully."

"Its compatibility with the new technologies and platforms, like the Google Cloud or Amazon, is the most valuable. Its console allows us to view the duration and execution of a process. It is also very easy to use and easy to implement."

"It is an enterprise tool that integrates with all the applications in our organization. It has made our life easier because we don't need to wake up at midnight and do monitoring, etc. It does everything. It also sends precautionary alerts. If a job or activity is running for more than the specified time, it alerts the application team. So, our teams do not need to sit in front of a laptop or any open application to watch the jobs. They can do their other regular activities while Control-M takes care of all the jobs. It notifies them when there is job completion, delay, and error."

"It has certainly helped speed things up."

"Ability to handle files remotely through the advanced file transfer feature."

"It has absolutely saved us time. It has made us more efficient. As far as the processing between systems, we don't have as many people. They have been able to focus on other efforts, because we have been able to automate more stuff with Control-M."

"It has a very good GUI. We can search for a job very easily. The web interface, user account creation, and access control are very good. From an access control point of view, we can provide access to as many users as we want. A second group of users can be given a certain number of features, according to the requirements. The web interface is very easy for end users to login and use. A lot of features have been added, e.g., adding jobs. They can add jobs to their stuff, whatever they want, then get it validated by the scheduling team and work it into production."

"The unified view where you can define, orchestrate, and monitor applications, workflows, and data pipelines is important because we have more than one team working on Control-M. We have a support team, a job-creation team, and a SAP team. We can all work together on it. It avoids anyone from working on his part and not using the latest modifications."

More Control-M pros

Cons

"There are not any areas that need improvement off the top of my head."

"We have some plug-ins like BOBJ, and we need a little improvement there. Other than that, it has been pretty good. I haven't seen any issues."

"The UI can be challenging for new users due to its learning curve. Additionally, there are some errors during automation. More detailed logs would be helpful."

"I am unsure if Control-M is compliant with Microsoft Azure environment integrations. We have some clients in Azure environments. Specifically, in Canada, government agencies and nonprofits mostly use Microsoft Azure."

"The high availability that comes from BMC with its supplied Postgres database is very limited. Even using your customer-supplied Postgres database is problematic. We have engaged with them regarding this, but it is difficult. My company doesn't want to do this and BMC doesn't want to do that. We just need to find some middle ground to get the proper high availability. We're also moving away, like the rest of the world, from the more expensive offerings, like Oracle. We are trying to use Postgres, which is free. The stability is good. It is just that the high availability configuration is not ideal. It could be better."

"The infrastructure updates could use improvement. Some of the previous updates that we have run to get to version nineteen were troublesome. So, a more seamless upgrade path for the infrastructure components would be useful. I don't know if they have replaced that in version 20 or if version 20 has an easier path, but I would like to see the upgrade from one version to the next version be a little smoother."

"Everybody's biggest gripe is the reporting capability option. It is a gripe because there is a lot of information in Control-M, but the solution doesn't have a good reporting tool to extract that information. Now, if you want all that information, you need to rely on another third-party BI tool to extract the information out of Control-M."

"The documentation could be improved, and I'd also like to see automatic upgrades."

"A smartphone interface would be welcome."

More Control-M cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"Its pricing and licensing could be a little bit better. Based on my experience and discussions with other existing customers, everybody feels that the regular Managed File Transfer piece, not the enterprise one, is a little overpriced, especially for folks who already have licensed Advanced File Transfer. We understand that Advanced File Transfer is going away and is going to be the end of life, and there is some additional functionality built into MFT, but the additional functionality does not really correlate with the huge price increase over what we're paying for AFT already. This has actually driven a lot of people to look for alternative solutions."

"One of the restrictions that we had was with some of the licensing, and not having any insight on the financials part of the product. I don't know what the licensing on the product is, but we don't have an unlimited enterprise license. So, there might be a limitation on either the cost of the licensing or the number of seats."

"In our environment, pricing depends on the total number of maximum jobs that can run, which is fine. Therefore, if the number of jobs increases, then the licensing fees will increase."

"We have account based licensing. There are two or three types of licensing. One of them is based on the number of jobs, so we a license close to 4,000 jobs per day. The cost is based on the different modules, which we buy from them. If we a buy a hardware module, which we are presently using and integrating, that is an additional cost, but I'm not sure of the amount. Each module comes with a different cost."

"It is not bad. The company can afford it, and it pays for itself. We have those jobs running automatically."

"The pricing is moderate, not too low or too high compared to other solutions."

"This is an area where it is a little difficult to work with BMC. They want to do licenses by job, which is what we have. For example, the simplest is to license by job, but they can also license by nodes. While the licensing is simple to use, it might not be the correct licensing model for the customer. It is okay because we want to license by job, which is something measurable. At the end of the day, licensing by job is the most important."

"There are human costs in addition to the standard pricing and licensing of this solution."

More Control-M pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

861,490 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

21%

Insurance Company

16%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

27%

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Appian RPA?

I didn't handle payments or costs. We recommended infrastructure stacks to our clients, who implemented them, and we provided ongoing consulting services.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Appian RPA?

There are not any areas that need improvement off the top of my head. It has been 18 months since I worked with the environment, and they've made UI enhancements and implemented AI, including featu...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Appian RPA?

We were automating customer experience workflows for the contact center, including systems like CRM, service desk solutions, CCaaS solutions, and pulling data from ERPs.

See all answers

How does Control-M compare with AutoSys Workload Automation?

Control-M acts as a single, centralized interface for monitoring and managing all batch processes, which is helpful because nothing gets left unattended since it is all visible in one place, and th...

See all answers

What do you like most about Control-M?

First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Control-M?

Its cost can be more competitive. One of the main things customers look at is the cost. It's not affordable. The cost is very high, according to my customers. The licensing cost is very high, and t...

See all answers

Comparisons

UiPath Platform vs Appian RPA

Compared 51% of the time

Blue Prism vs Appian RPA

Compared 22% of the time

Temporal vs Appian RPA

Compared 14% of the time

More Appian RPA Competitors

AutoSys Workload Automation vs Control-M

Compared 14% of the time

Automic Automation vs Control-M

Compared 8% of the time

Redwood RunMyJobs vs Control-M

Compared 8% of the time

IBM Workload Automation vs Control-M

Compared 6% of the time

Stonebranch vs Control-M

Compared 5% of the time

More Control-M Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Robotic Process Automation (RPA)

June 2025

Download Appian RPA product report

Buyer's Guide

Control-M

July 2025

Download Control-M product report

Also Known As

Jidoka RPA

Control M

Interactive Demo

Demo not available

Appian

BMC

Overview

Appian RPA seamlessly integrates with the comprehensive Appian Platform for process automation, offering an end-to-end solution for streamlining workflows and automating repetitive tasks. With features like the Universal RPA Task Recorder and the Low-code Appian Process Modeler, users can quickly build and deploy bots without extensive coding knowledge. Appian RPA ensures governance, dynamic exception handling, secure deployment, and scalability, enabling organizations to maintain automation integrity while efficiently managing digital workers across various environments. By leveraging Appian RPA alongside Appian IDP, AI, business rules, and API integrations, businesses can achieve seamless process automation and drive value quickly, optimizing workflows between humans, digital workers, and systems. With Appian's unified platform for change, organizations can accelerate digital innovation, enhance business efficiency, and create end-to-end automation solutions tailored to their specific needs.

Appian

Control-M by BMC offers orchestration for hybrid cloud workflows, starting at $29,000 annually. It's designed for teams managing dependencies efficiently with automation and scheduling capabilities.

Control-M is known for its automation, integration, and scheduling capabilities. It provides a user-friendly GUI for seamless third-party application integration and robust file transfer capabilities. Role-based administration features, self-service portals, and the ability to handle complex workflows enhance operational efficiency. Its control modules enable diverse integrations, while forecasting, monitoring, and alerting functionalities improve reliability and adaptability across platforms, making it essential for orchestrating tasks efficiently.

What are Control-M's key features?

User-Friendly GUI: Offers intuitive interface for easy navigation.
Seamless Third-Party Integration: Facilitates smooth interaction with other tools.
Robust File Transfer: Ensures reliable and secure data movement.
Role-Based Administration: Enhances security and access control.
Self-Service Portal: Enables users to manage tasks independently.
Forecasting and Monitoring: Provides predictive insights for better planning.

What benefits and ROI should users look for?

Operational Efficiency: Streamlines processes and reduces manual tasks.
Improved Reliability: Minimizes errors with automated workflows.
Real-Time Insights: Offers visibility into job performance and system status.
Scalability: Adapts to growing business needs.
Integration Flexibility: Supports diverse applications and environments.

Control-M is vital in industries like financial services, data management, and IT operations. It automates batch processing, job automation, and file transfers, supporting applications such as SAP, Oracle, and Informatica. This enhances transparency, reduces errors, and provides insights into job performance and system status.

BMC

Sample Customers

empark, talan, liverpool, ayesa, aeromexico, teknei

CARFAX, Tampa General Hospital, Navistar, Amadeus, Raymond James, Railinc

Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, BMC, Temporal Technologies and others in Process Automation. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

861,490 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Process Automation vendors.

We monitor all Process Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.