Control-M and Camunda operate within the workflow automation category. While Control-M is suitable for larger enterprises due to its robust integration capabilities and comprehensive support, Camunda seems to have an edge in flexibility and cost-effectiveness for developers.
Features: Control-M provides extensive integration capabilities, making it apt for banking environments where secure processing is essential. Its ability to manage workflows across different platforms with ease is highly valued, alongside robust processing that adds to its appeal. Camunda is recognized for its developer-friendly approach with outstanding open-source features. It adheres to BPMN standards and offers flexibility in modeling processes, which is seen as a huge plus. Additionally, it supports a variety of programming languages and microservices.
Room for Improvement: Control-M can enhance its reporting functionalities and improve integration for dynamic job types. Additionally, adjustments in cost customization and license management could provide more flexibility to users. Camunda, while cost-effective, could work on improving user interface options for low-code development to better meet the needs of complex enterprise environments.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Control-M is praised for its deployment flexibility in both cloud and on-premises environments, along with reputable customer support, although there is a call for enhanced holistic system support. Camunda's open-source availability and strong community support make it versatile, yet timely enterprise support could be improved for quicker resolutions.
Pricing and ROI: Control-M is often perceived as costly, fit for larger enterprises due to its extensive capabilities that justify the price through operational efficiency and increased ROI. On the other hand, Camunda offers an open-source model and is noted for its cost-effectiveness even in paid versions, providing scalable features at a competitive price.
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.
AWS provides the best support, followed by Microsoft, and then Google.
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 technical support is very polite, helpful, and available 24/7.
If something fails at 3 AM in the morning, you need to fix it and get it back up and working really quickly.
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.
It can absorb more workload wherever needed.
As the workload on Control-M increases, its scalability is much higher.
I would rate it a nine out of ten for scalability.
There haven't been any significant outages in my experience with Camunda.
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.
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.
They could provide more documentation and tutorials to make the initial setup easier to understand.
There should be an automation system for developers to set it up more easily and quickly.
What they've done about scheduling, other people are still trying to figure out.
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.
Pricing is generally affordable, though some features cost a bit more.
EC2 makes scaling horizontally incredibly easy, especially when working under the ECS service.
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.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| Camunda | 25.8% |
| Control-M | 4.6% |
| Other | 69.6% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 41 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 15 |
| Large Enterprise | 29 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 24 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 12 |
| Large Enterprise | 108 |
Camunda drives business process automation and AI orchestration, enhancing efficiency and innovation without compromising security and governance. Trusted by major brands like Atlassian, it seamlessly integrates systems and human tasks for impactful digital transformation.
Camunda is renowned for fostering collaboration between business and IT, empowering over 700 organizations across diverse sectors to manage and improve business-critical processes. With its flexible architecture, Camunda supports BPMN, CMMN, and DMN standards, allowing for efficient modeling and smooth integration with environments via REST APIs. This open-source platform offers extensive customization and combines enterprise features such as process history tracking and decision table editing, supporting both technical and non-technical users in achieving efficient automation strategies. While performance and scalability issues exist, especially in the cloud, Camunda remains a top choice for companies like ING and Vodafone.
What are Camunda's standout features?In sectors like banking and government, Camunda's fast prototyping and workflow automation capabilities optimize processes such as client onboarding and investment banking workflows. It enhances social governance tasks, credit flows, and enterprise integration, while also being used in insurance and telecom for automating repetitive tasks and improving efficiency. Organizations utilize Camunda for training and service management, showcasing its versatility across industries.
Control-M by BMC offers orchestration for hybrid cloud workflows, starting at $29,000 annually. It's designed for teams managing dependencies efficiently with automation and scheduling capabilities.
Control-M is known for its automation, integration, and scheduling capabilities. It provides a user-friendly GUI for seamless third-party application integration and robust file transfer capabilities. Role-based administration features, self-service portals, and the ability to handle complex workflows enhance operational efficiency. Its control modules enable diverse integrations, while forecasting, monitoring, and alerting functionalities improve reliability and adaptability across platforms, making it essential for orchestrating tasks efficiently.
What are Control-M's key features?Control-M is vital in industries like financial services, data management, and IT operations. It automates batch processing, job automation, and file transfers, supporting applications such as SAP, Oracle, and Informatica. This enhances transparency, reduces errors, and provides insights into job performance and system status.
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.
