We performed a comparison between BizTalk Server and Control-M based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Process Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We can handle a large number of messages without any issues, ensuring that everything runs smoothly."
"The most valuable feature of BizTalk Server is that it will turn XML into flexible transactions."
"I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its integration with the banks. Its messaging and routing capabilities are good."
"The most valuable feature is its reliability and stability. The first version of BizTalk was released in 2000, and many companies still use it. It was stable until 2013 when we had support."
"BIzTalk's integration with Visual Studio is the most valuable feature of this product."
"Essentially, you can do whatever you like with these systems, and you do not have to take care about the scaling because if one server is overloaded, it just forwards the message to the next server, even if it were designated to a specific server. It weeds out the messages according to the load. If you want to scale it, you just add new servers."
"Technical support is very helpful and available 24/7."
"Most valuable feature would be the ability to detect and notify when a process has not completed successfully."
"The most valuable features are the Advanced File Transfer and the manage file transfer. They make transferring files securely seamless. It's very easy to set up, get deployed, and have it transferred to and from vendors. As long as we can get our firewall rules implemented at a decent time, it's very easy and seamless to get important files transferred in a secure manner."
"It provides a unified view where you can orchestrate and monitor all your application workloads and data pipelines. That's very important because with cloud, software as a service, edge computing, traditional data center, and legacy apps, there are all these environments. If you don't have that single pane of glass or that one place to look at, you're going to invest a lot of time and resources into tracking things down when they go wrong."
"I think the administration part is much more valuable than any other feature."
"First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate."
"The File Transfer component is quite valuable. The integration with products such as Informatica and SAP are very valuable to us as well. Rather than having to build our own interface into those products, we can use the ones that come out of the box. The integration with databases is valuable as well. We use database jobs quite a bit."
"Maintaining and monitoring of workloads have been and continue to be the most valuable feature in our environment."
"It's an on-premises system, requiring physical servers for deployment. This is different from Azure; you don't need any servers with Azure. If you have a subscription, you can do whatever you want. There are unit restrictions based on the environment (like non-production vs. production) in BizTalk. You need physical servers and databases. In Azure, those are not required – it's all in the cloud."
"The product's deployment can be quicker"
"BizTalk is in the past, Microsoft is not going to evolve it any further or add any new features."
"It's a complex product because you have many degrees of freedom to connect different parts together. Whether it's sensible or not, is up to you, but the machine does allow it. But because of the vast degrees of freedom, it's complex."
"BizTalk Server is an outdated legacy system that does not support messaging."
"The product could be improved in monitoring, managing, and support functionalities."
"The deployment could be simplified."
"The performance could be better. Control-M Enterprise Manager tends to slow the system down even on a server with a six-core processor and 32 gigabytes RAM. The console is Java-based, so maybe OpenJDK 16 or 17 would be a performance improvement."
"The next major release needs to focus on the lightweight web client."
"It has a slight issue with daylight savings time while advancing the clock in the Spring."
"They really need to work on improving the web interface, as there are still a lot of bugs... In general, they need to do a lot of work on shoring up their testing and quality assurance. A lot of bugs seem to make it into the product."
"They can give more predefined plug-ins so that we don't have to create them."
"I think it's slightly expensive but at the same time it's a good product."
"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."
BizTalk Server is ranked 17th in Process Automation with 11 reviews while Control-M is ranked 4th in Process Automation with 110 reviews. BizTalk Server is rated 7.4, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of BizTalk Server writes "Helps us implement complex mapping and integration, but deployment could be simplified". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". BizTalk Server is most compared with IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services, SAP Process Orchestration, Camunda, SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite and Infor ION, 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 BizTalk Server vs. Control-M report.
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.
