Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Camunda vs Control-M comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 15, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.1
Camunda delivers cost-effective, stable solutions enhancing productivity, reducing operational expenses, and offering comprehensive process coverage for large enterprises.
Sentiment score
6.6
Control-M automates operations, reduces costs, and improves efficiency, offering swift ROI and enhanced service levels for large enterprises.
The main return on investment with Helix Control-M has been a reduction in downtime and minimization of manual interventions, which has improved our operational efficiency.
You can run a million batch jobs or tasks at night when all of your highly skilled people are at home sleeping.
By implementing automation tools, you can minimize human errors and improve efficiency.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.3
Camunda's customer service is praised for helpfulness and expertise, though some mention challenges with complexity and regional support.
Sentiment score
7.2
Control-M's customer support is praised for responsiveness and expertise, despite occasional slow responses, offering strong resource availability.
AWS provides the best support, followed by Microsoft, and then Google.
They really understand deeply and in detailed fashion the solution.
They provide better support for the enterprise edition.
They quickly evolve with changing technology trends, easily adopt new features, and incorporate them into the product.
The support is accurate, and BMC is always ready to help with queries and complex incidents.
The technical support is very polite, helpful, and available 24/7.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.0
Camunda excels in scalability using modern tools but faces database challenges; improvements are noted in documentation and setup.
Sentiment score
7.6
Control-M efficiently scales across enterprise levels, managing extensive jobs, though costs may impact its otherwise robust capabilities.
Camunda offers a high level of scalability, especially when using its SaaS model, which manages and scales implementations automatically.
ECS and Fargate make horizontal scalability very easy.
They have that REST layer, REST APIs layer that makes it easy to integrate and make it part of a microservices ecosystem and APIs.
Our license doesn't limit our ability to configure Control-M as needed, allowing us to easily create new agents or environments.
It can absorb more workload wherever needed.
As the workload on Control-M increases, its scalability is much higher.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
Camunda is highly rated for stability, with minimal bugs, and performs efficiently in various production environments even under load.
Sentiment score
7.7
Control-M is highly stable and reliable, handling large workloads efficiently with minimal downtime or disruptions.
There haven't been any significant outages in my experience with Camunda.
We were not really concerned about the performance on the process itself because it was super simple, super straightforward, and it did not present itself as a bottleneck, nor did we feel it was adding additional time in the execution.
The downtime is higher compared to AWS.
The testing and development phases need to be more rigorous before releasing patches.
Once properly implemented, the system becomes very stable, which is one of its strongest attributes.
 

Room For Improvement

Camunda needs better customization, programming language integration, scalability, and AWS support, with enhanced documentation and performance improvements.
Control-M needs better flexibility, reporting, integration, scalability, UI, cloud and AI support, documentation, and streamlined upgrades.
More open documentation would be beneficial to understand the deployment process better and facilitate easier setup.
There is an issue where, in some situations, I need to scale up by observing both CPU and memory usage of containers, yet under the current options available at Amazon, this is not possible.
Since they made the move to cloud deployment in a more SaaS-oriented way, they do not invest too much in the community version.
They could provide more documentation and tutorials to make the initial setup easier to understand.
We've experienced main problems with MFTE where having one setup means when an error occurs, the entire service goes down.
Documentation should be maintained for all versions since they provided the application.
 

Setup Cost

Camunda's pricing is competitive, but costly for small businesses; enterprise edition offers advanced features and support options.
Control-M's complex pricing reflects robust features valued by enterprises, justifying the premium cost despite competitive alternatives.
AWS pricing is very competitive compared to Azure and cheap compared to Google.
There is a licensing cost for using the SaaS model and Enterprise edition of Camunda.
The licensing cost is very high, and they often consider switching to IBM Workload Scheduler or other options.
Control-M tends to be more expensive compared to other solutions, but users get great value from it.
Control-M is among the highest-priced solutions in the market.
 

Valuable Features

Camunda is valued for its flexibility, open-source customization, user-friendly interface, and effective management of complex processes.
Control-M offers user-friendly GUI, extensive integration, efficient scheduling, real-time monitoring, mobile access, and centralized workload management features.
EC2 makes scaling horizontally incredibly easy, especially when working under the ECS service.
Camunda's support for BPMN 2.0 is a great advantage because it allows us to have a common language to discuss technology and business in the same perspective.
The biggest difference between Camunda and Bonita might be that Camunda is simpler and more flexible for setting.
Automation is more advanced, deployment is fast, and version control has been simplified.
The user interface is comprehensive and lets me view all my jobs on one page, monitor everything, and access the job history.
It is easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for data ops or DevOps processes as things change, and it is not complex compared to other workload automation tools available in the market.
 

Categories and Ranking

Camunda
Ranking in Process Automation
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
78
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (2nd), Business Process Management (BPM) (1st)
Control-M
Ranking in Process Automation
2nd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
138
Ranking in other categories
Managed File Transfer (MFT) (4th), Workload Automation (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of Camunda is 23.9%, down from 27.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Control-M is 4.7%, up from 4.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Camunda23.9%
Control-M4.7%
Other71.4%
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

CristianoGomes - PeerSpot reviewer
Supports long-running asynchronous processes effectively but has not evolved much in recent years
I think Camunda is focusing too much on the SaaS offering right now and not much on improving and developing the product itself. I did not see any innovations on that aspect, especially for the open-source version. I was making some tests recently and the tool seemed pretty much the same as it was three or four years ago. Since they made the move to cloud deployment in a more SaaS-oriented way, they do not invest too much in the community version. To be honest, it did not change much from the Activiti initial version. Activiti was pretty much what Camunda is today. They invested a lot on Zeebe and made it the engine for their SaaS cloud version. Camunda itself, the embedded engine, did not evolve too much. They could invest more on that.
Mark_Francome - PeerSpot reviewer
Easily connects to different platforms and ties everything together in a centralized screen
Areas of Control-M that have room for improvement include the reporting feature. The reporting on Control-M hasn't changed much over the years, although it is in a different internal format. It used to be Crystal Reports, and now they've upgraded that. It would be better if that was really flexible where you could define your own reports. You can customize it a little bit, but when people come in with complex questions, you should be able to use that tool and access anything in the database. Control-M has two internal databases that are core to the product. You can go in and do your own SQL queries against the database, but this reporting tool should really be able to do everything that you can do with SQL, and give you good information. Instead, you end up having to export to spreadsheets and then change and update them. It can be very labor-intensive to get this information out. Other than the reporting, they've addressed most things over the years. Control-M is a tool that's been around for more than 30 years, so they have actually fixed most issues that you would encounter. They have a request for enhancement process that most users have sent requests to, but it doesn't move very quickly. The other challenge is they're supporting so many different platforms; BMC just wants it to be a trouble-free release. When users request new features, such as improved reporting, BMC's priority remains maintaining a clean-running system.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
872,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
6%
Insurance Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
27%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business42
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise29
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business26
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise114
 

Questions from the Community

How does Bonita compare with Camunda Platform?
One of the things we like best about Bonita is that you can create without coding - it is a low-code platform. With Bonita, you can build the entire mechanism using the GUI, it’s that simple. You c...
Which do you prefer - Appian or Camunda Platform?
Appian is fast when building simple to medium solutions. This solution offers simple drag-and-drop functionality with easy plug-and-play options. The initial setup was seamless and very easy to imp...
Which would you choose - Camunda Platform or Apache Airflow?
Camunda Platform allows for visual demonstration and presentation of business process flows. The flexible Java-based option was a big win for us and allows for the integration of microservices very...
How does Control-M compare with AutoSys Workload Automation?
Control-M acts as a single, centralized interface for monitoring and managing all batch processes, which is helpful because nothing gets left unattended since it is all visible in one place, and th...
What do you like most about Control-M?
First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
Control M
 

Interactive Demo

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

24 Hour Fitness, Accruent, AT&T Inc., Atlassian, CSS Insurance, Deutsche Telekom, Generali, Provinzial NordWest Insurance Services, Swisscom AG, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VHV Group, Zalando
CARFAX, Tampa General Hospital, Navistar, Amadeus, Raymond James, Railinc
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda vs. Control-M and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.