We performed a comparison between AWS Step Functions 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 solution is stable...The solution is easy to scale."
"The number of historical events is great."
"It is a scalable solution."
"AWS Step Functions acts as a high-level layer, allowing us to seamlessly integrate with microservices."
"One can rate all the calls and that is a good feature."
"It's Amazon, it's scalable."
"What I like the most about Amazon Step Functions is how easy it is to use."
"It's a general solution that you can adapt to your own needs and is simple to use. We like that it can be integrated with everything in the AWS suite, and that the creation of the pipeline can be done using the graphical user interface."
"Cross-platform support: A Linux job can be dependent on a Windows job, which can be dependent on many other flavours of hardware/software. Your batch is therefore managed by a single tool, allowing you to monitor your entire flow."
"Speeds up processes and automated tasks."
"Self Service for repeatable, low impact workload automation processes."
"The File Watcher utility, cyclic jobs, and email alert notification are valuable."
"It is very stable. We hardly get calls in respect to issues on Control-M, particularly on version 9.0.19."
"The ability to integrate file transfers has been instrumental in allowing us to accomplish the things we need with Control-M. In our industry, we take a lot of data and either push it down to the stores or retail grocery stores. We take files and push them down to the stores or pull files and information from the stores and bring it back to corporate. So, it's two-way communication with file transfers. One of the bigger things that we do with Control-M is scheduling data moves and moving data from one location to another."
"The ability to dynamically predict batch run time is so valuable."
"It gives us the ability to have end-to-end workflows, no matter where they're running."
"The interface can sometimes feel limited, as we're unable to see what AWS is running behind the scenes."
"The pricing of the solution can be improved."
"Setup took about one day. We had some errors to understand in the beginning, but now everything is working good."
"It wasn't easy to understand the licensing model. It's like if you use just a little, it's cheap, but it becomes more expensive as you use more. It's like a hook that ties you inside the Amazon ecosystem. So, it creates a dependency."
"It is hard to coordinate the declaratory language."
"I would like to see more data transformation features in Amazon Step Functions like additional operators and logic."
"The solution's data size limit can be improved."
"The price and support are areas with shortcomings where the solution needs to improve."
"There's a lot of room for improvement and I think it can be more user-friendly."
"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 community and the networking that goes on within that community need improvement. We want to be able to reach out to an SME, and say, "Hey, we are doing it this way. Does that make sense?" Ideally, they come back. and say, "Yes, it does make sense to do it that way. However, if you want to do it this way, then it is a little more efficient." We understand that one solution framework doesn't fit everybody. Depending on the breadth of the data and how broad it is, you may have different models for one over the other."
"I would like to see them adopt more cloud. Most companies don't have a single cloud, meaning we have data sources that come from different cloud providers. That may have been solved already, but supporting Azure would be an improvement because companies tend not to have only AWS and GCP."
"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."
"After we complete FTP jobs, those FTP jobs will be cleared from the Control-M schedule after the noon refresh. So, I struggle to find out where those jobs are saved. Then, we need to request execution of the FTP jobs again. If there could be an option to show the logs, which have been previously completed, that would help us. I can find all other job logs from the server side, but FTP job logs. Maybe I am missing the feature, or if it is not there, it could be added."
"It can definitely expand promotions, so that a single job can be moved. Currently you can only promote a job by promoting the entire table."
"I'm not sure how the solution fits together with our business modernization initiatives, as there are things outside of my area, even though Control-M is the scheduling tool of the company. They may use other things, e.g., Big Data."
AWS Step Functions is ranked 15th in Workload Automation with 8 reviews while Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews. AWS Step Functions is rated 7.8, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AWS Step Functions writes "Simplifies complex task automation and enhances development workflows while offering user-friendly interface, seamless scalability and efficient workflow orchestration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". AWS Step Functions is most compared with Camunda, IBM BPM, Apache Airflow, Pega BPM and Oracle BPM, 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 AWS Step Functions 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.
