We performed a comparison between Control-M and Rocket Zena based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Control-M offers a variety of valuable features such as Managed File Transfer, credentials vault, integration capabilities, Role-Based Administration, file transfer integration, collaboration dashboard, scheduling, configuration ease, reporting, workload archiving, and forecasting. Rocket Zena excels in ease of use, user interface, diagram feature, Linux configuration, cross-platform job scheduling, web-based client, whiteboard feature, FTP file transfer, licensing process, technical support, and pricing.
Control-M can enhance its microservices and API integration, address bugs in the web interface, develop a lighter web version, improve reporting capabilities, streamline the upgrade process, and integrate with third-party tools. Rocket Zena needs improvement in providing visibility into connections between applications, monitoring agents, ensuring availability on distributed platforms, enhancing communication between servers and agents, and implementing a notification feature for non-functioning servers.
Service and Support: Control-M's customer service has received both positive and negative feedback from customers. Some customers appreciate the support team's promptness and expertise, while others have concerns about the time it takes to resolve issues. Rocket Zena's customer service has received positive reviews, with customers expressing satisfaction with the fast response time and high-quality support.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Control-M was considered simple and user-friendly, thanks to the helpful guides and videos provided. However, the need for manual conversion of jobs and scripts added some complexity. The initial setup for Rocket Zena varied among users, with some finding it easier to understand. Although integrating with SAP posed a challenge, once users became familiar with the system, creating use cases became easier.
Pricing: Control-M has received mixed feedback regarding its setup cost, with some users expressing concerns about the expenses associated with hardware and licensing. Rocket Zena is perceived as a cost-effective and affordable alternative, particularly suitable for small businesses.
ROI: Control-M provides reduced overall expenses, increased productivity, centralized connection profiles, and improved automation and workflows. The ROI for Zena is unclear.
Comparison Results: Control-M is highly recommended over Rocket Zena. Users love its simple setup, effortless maintenance, and effective automation. Its standout features include Managed File Transfer, credentials vault, integration abilities, and Role-Based Administration. Users also appreciate its teamwork and unified view dashboard.
"The best part about this product is that it has a lot of features. Control-M doesn't limit us and we can use it for a lot of things."
"The monitoring tool is very good. It's very easy for expert and entry-level users to use on short notice."
"My organization has been able to script scheduled jobs in Control-M to potentially replace legacy products that are at end of life or end of service. The previous backup applications that were being used for specific files, folders, or applications were no longer being supported, therefore being able to use Control-M to replace that has been very valuable."
"The File Watcher utility, cyclic jobs, and email alert notification are valuable."
"Our data transfers have improved using Control-M processes, e.g., our monthly batches. When we used to do things manually, like copying files and reports, we used to take three to four days to complete a batch. However, with the automated file transfers and report sharing, we have been able to complete a batch within two and a half days and our reports are on time to users. So, 30% to 40% of the execution time has been saved."
"The ability to dynamically predict batch run time is so valuable."
"Technical support is very helpful and available 24/7."
"We are now able to deliver data to our data warehouses and dashboards promptly."
"I have used other tools with similar capabilities; it's the ease of use."
"I have found the scheduling feature the most valuable. I can map dependencies by using ASG-Zena. It gives a nice, quick visualization as to where things are."
"I like the whole product, but specifically, I like the license part. It's very easy to acquire a license for this product."
"From a Linux configuration point of view, Rocket Zena is straightforward. It's fairly easy to set up the server and agents once you know how to do it."
"You can click Ctrl-G and bring a diagram view. You're able to view in a diagram format. The view that it provides is easy, and you can move to the left, up, or down. You can double-click on a certain process. It'll drill into that process and all of its underlying components. You can double-click on an arrow or a component, and it'll bring up a screen that'll have all the variables that are assigned to that particular piece, as well as the values at run time. So, the diagram feature of it, at least for me, is pretty valuable."
"Its FTP feature is very good, as is scheduling any process or task with the Zena client. I have found it to be very helpful. If a task fails, it gives you a prompt."
"In the latest upgrade, Zena added a web-based client. The more I use it, the more I like it. It's an excellent interface. They do a good job of steadily improving the solution to make it more useful."
"We haven't had any problems since we installed it. It runs as expected, we haven't had any critical problems. It helps keeps the business running 24/7."
"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 reporting tool still needs a lot of improvement. It was supposed to get better with the upgrade, and it really didn't get better. It needs help, because it's such a useful thing to have. It needs to be more powerful and easier to use."
"Its architecture is old. AutoSys gives more flexibility."
"I would like to have a web version of Control-M to replace the client. Currently, our support and jobs-creation teams are using the client and that needs to be installed on a PC. It's very heavy, consuming a lot of resources compared to the web portal. I know that they're trying to improve the client with the latest version, but for me, there hasn't been enough improvement yet."
"When it comes to supporting cloud services, Control-M is a bit slow. We are not advancing with the technology because we don't have the modules that can interact or use the new application services provided by the cloud technologies."
"Its operations and infrastructure can be improved."
"Whenever I pull an S4HANA job to the Helix Control-M tool, it pulls it naturally with all the steps. A job can have several steps, and in this case, it is very easy to control the steps taken. However, in the case of the SaaS IBP tool, it can pull the job but cannot identify the steps. So, when I want to take an action in a step, I have to split the job."
"For installing or upgrading the PeopleSoft and SAP plugins, currently there is no way to do it via Control-M Configuration Manager. So, we are installing or upgrading the plugins, like PeopleSoft and SAP, manually. If BMC could provide an option via Control-M Configuration Manager to upgrade these plugins, it probably would reduce a lot of manual work as well as ease our work. This is one improvement that I personally want to see, because it would help our way of working."
"In the next release, I would like the user experience to be improved. The user interface should be more appealing to gen-z."
"The UI is not intuitive, and it would be nice if there was a web interface."
"The scheduling mapping is a little disjointed. There is no wizard-type approach. There are a lot of different things that you have to do in completely different areas. They could probably add the functionality for creating all components of a mapping or an OPA schedule. The component creation could be done collectively rather than through individual components."
"Rocket Zena is a mainframe-based job scheduler. I would like it to be more open so that we can use it on a distributed platform."
"Another one that is probably a little bit bigger for me is that when there is an issue or there's an error, it writes on a different screen. I have to find the actual process name and go to a different screen to view the alert that got generated. On that screen, everyone's processes, not just the processes of the folks in my department, are thrown. It takes me a while to find the actual error so that I could go in there and look at the alert. It could be because of the way it was set up, but at least for me, it isn't too intuitive."
"The documentation has room for improvement."
"In the web interface, it stacks the tasks across the top, and they accumulate until you close or clean those out. That seems a little cumbersome. You must right-click and close all tabs constantly to keep the console clean and manage your views."
"One area where it could be improved is communication between the different servers. Sometimes there are processes that have already been completed but we get a status notification that they're still active."
Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews while Rocket Zena is ranked 12th in Workload Automation with 9 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while Rocket Zena is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rocket Zena writes "A continuously evolving, stable solution, with responsive support". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, Automic Workload Automation and Redwood RunMyJobs, whereas Rocket Zena is most compared with Rocket Zeke, IBM Workload Automation, AutoSys Workload Automation and ActiveBatch by Redwood. See our Control-M vs. Rocket Zena report.
See our list of best Workload Automation vendors.
We monitor all Workload 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.
