We performed a comparison between BMC TrueSight Orchestration 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 particularly like the integration functionality of this solution. This product is open API, which means that it can be integrated with any solution from any other brand."
"This solution is scalable."
"I find the provisioning to be the most valuable."
"The automation helps in payment transactions through BHIM app. The BMC helps in smooth clearance of all payments without using MasterCard or Visa. The solution is ready to use, and there is no need for customization or resources. We can complete integration over cloud and on-premise, and even using mainframes. The automation are secure through BMC TrueSight Orchestration."
"We can implement compliance standards with the solution. You can also do patching so that the environment is compliant and secure from external threats and hacking. We can provision multiple systems with the help of predefined templates that the organization has forwarded us. The solution’s users can also integrate multiple products which can be either BMC or non-BMC. There are numerous possibilities that can be done with server automation"
"The best thing about TrueSight is the user interface, which is intuitive and easy to use. It supports accessibility and exporting, so we can output to the format we require. We can use TrueSight to integrate nearly any other product. I can't think of another product that can match this functionality. We also have Microsoft Orchestrator, but it can't match BMC TrueSight Orchestration."
"The product has a very good triggering mechanism."
"The best feature of BMC TrueSight Orchestration is the number of integrated mechanisms it provides."
"There is a batch monitoring tool called Batch Impact Manager, which proactively warns when processing is behind and SLAs are in jeopardy of being missed."
"It is very easy to use. The HA feature is also very good."
"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."
"If they have ad hoc requirements, then they can theoretically schedule their own file transfers with the Self Service. We are trying to push as much work back to the customers or developers that have that requirement, because they prefer to help themselves, if possible. We try empowering them and enabling them through Control-M, especially for file transfers, because it is a much broader base of the business then just with batch scheduling. Typically, with SAP batch scheduling, it would work with dedicated teams. With file transfers, the entire business is involved. There are business users, end users, etc. It definitely needs to be as simple as possible and as managed as well as possible. They need to manage it themselves, if possible, because our team is not growing but the number of customers, applications, and jobs are growing. We need to hand back some of the responsibility to the customer for them to resolve and action it."
"Control-M has enabled true enterprise batch automation, which combined with the other BMC Control products on our mainframe platform, allows us to run a 24/7 site with the lights out."
"The most valuable features are the managing of file transfers and the product keeping up with technology."
"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."
"We can set up automated email notifications to the programmers or the whole team for a particular job. It helps save time because we're not consistently looking at the job to see if it has ended or failed."
"At present this solution is only available to be hosted on-premises, which can cause network issues when integration with cloud-based software is attempted."
"BMC TrueSight Orchestration is difficult to understand. It's not very user-friendly."
"BMC TrueSight Orchestration could improve by providing some visibility on how the workflows are progressing."
"It would be helpful if TrueSight could log errors in a better format. I would also like to see more connector support. Let's say I have a third-party vendor that I need to integrate with Ansible. It would be helpful if BMC announced a specific connector for that. I've encountered situations where I need to work with scripts or find another way to integrate a particular product with TrueSight Orchestration. BMC already supports many products. For example, we have a connector for Ansible, but I think it needs to be improved some."
"We are aiming for AI automation and look for support from BMC. The features are currently missing but we are hoping for some upgrade in this matter."
"The solution should move to the cloud. Every application from the BMC is on the container and moving to the cloud. There is also a number of limitations for the smart reporting feature of the TrueSight server which is not working in sync. We did not get any satisfactory reply from BMC on that note. We are not able to do the real-time sync between HSA and non-HSA service reporting tools and the actual application tools."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"The architecture of this solution needs improvement, it is very complicated. It creates a lot of problems in our environment. Most of the time I am trying to find and solve the problem."
"I would like to see more auditing capabilities. Right now, it has the basics and I've been trying to set those up to work with what our auditors are looking for."
"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."
"I talked to Control-M guys back in October or November when they had a gathering here in Atlanta. We talked about not being able to go back in history in Helix Control-M for more than two weeks. We submitted a request for enhancement. They told us that they are working on it, and they are thinking of expanding that to 30 days. We would like to see it expand to 90 days, but they are working on it."
"It has a slight issue with daylight savings time while advancing the clock in the Spring."
"The company has been working with BMC on the MFT. There are still some things about MFT which don't work the way that we want with our needs. So, we would like to see that improved."
"It is a very strong product, but the reporting could be better."
"Consider adding a mobile application for remote management."
"A Control-M on-prem license is based on the number of jobs, which is the number of tasks a particular customer wants to have. These tasks have to be run within 24 hours window. For example, if you have a license for 100 jobs, you can run a maximum of 100 jobs in a 24-hour window. If your operations could not run 10 jobs, and they ran only 90 jobs, they just carry over to the next day, but the next day, they will have 110 jobs. Control-M asks you to buy those 10 more licenses because you were out of compliance in terms of the number of licenses. This is something that needs to be indicated in Control-M GUI so that customers know the number of licenses they're going to use in this time window. Their support and documentation should be improved. I am not that satisfied with their customer support. Sometimes, they don't have the answers. Their documentation is very poor. It is not well written, and it is not in a very logical manner. You can use it on Unix, Linux, Windows, and AIX, but it needs some improvement on iSeries. It needs a built-in mechanism inside the system to give you an option to restore from the last point of failure. If a process crashes, the Control-M needs to have a mechanism in iSeries where the process can be restored from the last point of failure."
BMC TrueSight Orchestration is ranked 15th in Process Automation with 9 reviews while Control-M is ranked 4th in Process Automation with 110 reviews. BMC TrueSight Orchestration is rated 8.0, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of BMC TrueSight Orchestration writes "An orchestration tool to automate the end-to-end process with a need to improve its user experience". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". BMC TrueSight Orchestration is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ServiceNow Orchestration, CA Process Automation, Camunda and SaltStack, 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 BMC TrueSight Orchestration 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.
