We performed a comparison between Automic Automation Intelligence and Control-M based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Workload Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The tool's online manuals and documentation are good. Its user interface is user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of Automic Automation Intelligence is the ability to see all of the batches from one place. Additionally, there is a multiple scheduler that is useful."
"The Action Packs are a good feature."
"It has certainly helped speed things up."
"I find Control-M for SAP and Control-M for Informatica good. You can connect to the Linux or Windows servers, and you can run multiple jobs."
"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 integration with ServiceNow is good. When a job ends and there are problems with it, we automatically open an incident in this platform, and the number of the incident is forwarded to Control-M. This means that we have a record of it with the log of the job."
"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."
"Ability to handle files remotely through the advanced file transfer feature."
"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."
"Before Control-M, we didn't have a centralized view and could not view what happened in the past to determine what will happen in the future. The Gantt view that we have in Control-M is like a project view. It is nice because we sometimes have some application maintenance that we need to do. So, in a single console, we can hold the jobs for the next hour or two. We can release that job when it is finished. This is a really nice feature that we didn't have before. It is something really simple, but we didn't previously have a console where we could say, "For the next two hours, what are the jobs that we will run? And, hold these jobs not to run." This is really important."
"The solution could benefit by having more connectors and customized widgets. Additionally, a dashboard that people could use for videos would be helpful."
"The job reporting feature needs improvement."
"Integration of the solution could be improved."
"Control-M reporting is a bit of a pain point right now. Control-M doesn't have robust reporting. I would like to see better reporting options. I would like to be able to pull charts or statistics that look nicer. Right now, we can pull some data, but it is kind of choppy. It would be nicer to have enterprise-level reporting that you can present to managers."
"Its architecture is old. AutoSys gives more flexibility."
"One feature I would like to include is in the middle of the monitoring domain. In the monitoring domain, if I have to update a number of jobs, the only way to do it is by manually clicking on each job. I would like a feature that allows me to do a mass update in the jobs, which I feel is still lacking."
"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."
"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."
"We would recommend modernizing the look and feel of Control-M. They also need to move towards more self-service and development in their environment. It's very antiquated."
"In general, it is a very good product, and we are very happy with it. It meets all of our expectations."
"Its operations and infrastructure can be improved."
More Automic Automation Intelligence Pricing and Cost Advice →
Automic Automation Intelligence is ranked 20th in Workload Automation with 3 reviews while Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews. Automic Automation Intelligence is rated 8.6, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Automic Automation Intelligence writes "Useful multiple scheduler, centralized batch view, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". Automic Automation Intelligence is most compared with Redwood RunMyJobs, AutoSys Workload Automation, AppWorx Workload Automation, Automic Workload Automation and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Automic Workload Automation. See our Automic Automation Intelligence vs. Control-M 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.
