We performed a comparison between Control-M and IBM Workload Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Control-M offers several valuable features such as Managed File Transfer, credentials vault, integration capabilities, Role-Based Administration, file transfer integration, collaboration dashboard, reporting, workload archiving, and forecasting. IBM Workload Automation provides user-requested features, job triggering in multiple nodes, pre-scheduling, system stability, and efficient batch application management.
Based on the reviews, Control-M could enhance its microservices and API integration, fix bugs in the web interface, improve reporting capabilities, streamline the upgrade process, and integrate better with third-party tools. IBM Workload Automation could benefit from improvements in performance, job dependencies, stability, and integration with new technologies.
Service and Support: The customer service for Control-M has received both positive and negative feedback. Some customers appreciate the quick and knowledgeable support team, while others believe that support can be sluggish. IBM Workload Automation is renowned for its exceptional technical support, although there may be difficulties in pinpointing the origins of specific problems.
Ease of Deployment: Control-M is considered to be uncomplicated and easy to deploy, although there might be a learning curve. The duration of the setup can vary depending on the complexity involved. IBM Workload Automation may pose difficulties for users who are not familiar with IBM tools. However, with proper assistance, the setup becomes relatively simple. Additionally, agent-based installations can be deployed quickly.
Pricing: The cost of setting up Control-M is determined by the number of jobs or endpoints, which may be perplexing and costly for certain users. IBM Workload Automation's pricing is based on the customer's contract and switching to a per job license can lead to savings. The number of licenses needed for IBM Workload Automation can differ based on usage.
ROI: Control-M offers a notable return on investment due to its cost reduction, enhanced efficiency, automated batch scheduling, and decreased reliance on manual tasks. IBM Workload Automation's ROI is uncertain and necessitates additional investigation and analysis.
Comparison Results: Control-M is the preferred product when compared to IBM Workload Automation. Control-M is highly praised for its simple setup process, ease of maintenance, and efficient automation abilities. Users appreciate the Managed File Transfer feature, credentials vault, integration capabilities, and Role-Based Administration offered by Control-M. Additionally, Control-M provides valuable features like scheduling, easy configuration, and a user-friendly web interface.
"Ability to handle files remotely through the advanced file transfer feature."
"Control-M provides us with a unified view, where we can easily define, orchestrate, and monitor all our application workflows and data pipelines. It also provides the ability to filter. So, if I don't want to see everything, I can also narrow it down or open ViewPoint. This is very important since we have thousands of jobs to monitor. If we did not have this ability, it would be very difficult to see what is going on."
"First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate."
"Our data transfers have improved using Control-M processes, e.g., our monthly batches. When we used to do things manually, like copying files and reports, we used to take three to four days to complete a batch. However, with the automated file transfers and report sharing, we have been able to complete a batch within two and a half days and our reports are on time to users. So, 30% to 40% of the execution time has been saved."
"It has certainly helped speed things up."
"The most valuable features are the GUI console, stability, and workflow."
"The monitoring tool is very good. It's very easy for expert and entry-level users to use on short notice."
"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."
"The DWC, when configured correctly, is a great GUI tool to provide Self-Service Scheduling capabilities to the user community."
"Jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes."
"The most important feature is the creation of folders. It's a really great feature because you can organize the process with naming conventions."
"The support from Cisco is very good. I was with them as a company for 40 years"
"Technical support from IBM is very good."
"The whole product is valuable because it is a tool for batch automation."
"Provides a robust, full spectrum enterprise-wide WLA platform."
"The project we worked on involved the running of nearly 24,000 job instances in a single day, so I would say that the solution is stable."
"The reporting tool still needs a lot of improvement. It was supposed to get better with the upgrade, and it really didn't get better. It needs help, because it's such a useful thing to have. It needs to be more powerful and easier to use."
"Control-M doesn't have any dynamic reporting facilities or features."
"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."
"The report form and display function are weak; they are not very powerful."
"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."
"When it comes to supporting cloud services, Control-M is a bit slow. We are not advancing with the technology because we don't have the modules that can interact or use the new application services provided by the cloud technologies."
"Control-M reporting is a bit of a pain point right now. Control-M doesn't have robust reporting. I would like to see better reporting options. I would like to be able to pull charts or statistics that look nicer. Right now, we can pull some data, but it is kind of choppy. It would be nicer to have enterprise-level reporting that you can present to managers."
"An issue we have run into in our lower environments is that Control-M can log you out frequently."
"This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly."
"Slow down on the releases a bit. I fully understand that IWA functionality is increasing at an amazing rate, but trying to keep up with the upgrades is rough."
"It should support other schedulers that aren't IBM products."
"The performance of the previous versions could be better."
"It would be helpful to have a mobile app that could be used to follow the job schedule."
"The configuration of IBM Workload Automation has some challenges. We have a difficult time customizing it, but it is similar to other solutions."
"It is missing some features and can improve in areas where the competition is somewhat better like linking job dependencies."
"There should be more custom documentation, specifically around Java APIs. There should also be more training. In terms of features, we are currently using only 50% of its features. We don't use all features that are available, but there is always room for improvement in all of the tools."
Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews while IBM Workload Automation is ranked 13th in Workload Automation with 28 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while IBM Workload Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Workload Automation writes "With an easy setup phase in place, agent-based installation can be done in minutes". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, Automic Workload Automation and Redwood RunMyJobs, whereas IBM Workload Automation is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, HCL Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Tidal by Redwood and CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence. See our Control-M vs. IBM Workload Automation 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.
