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

Control-M vs IBM Workload Automation vs OpenText Operations Orchestration comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
Control-M boosts efficiency and reduces costs by automating operations, enhancing performance, and delivering swift returns on investment.
Sentiment score
5.2
IBM Workload Automation is valuable for complex setups with trained teams, despite maintenance costs and slower performance on simpler networks.
Sentiment score
8.6
OpenText Operations Orchestration saves costs and time, reducing workloads and increasing productivity with a 40% efficiency improvement.
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
7.4
Control-M customer service is praised for efficiency and availability, though technical support experiences mixed reviews and occasional delays.
Sentiment score
8.3
Opinions on IBM Workload Automation's support vary; some praise it, while others face delays and inconsistent service.
Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText Operations Orchestration's customer and technical support can be inconsistent, with users experiencing varying levels of service quality.
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.
I would rate their support between eight and nine out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
Control-M is highly scalable, handles diverse applications, but presents occasional scaling challenges and costs, especially with cloud integration.
Sentiment score
7.0
IBM Workload Automation is preferred for scalability in complex scheduling, with minor challenges at higher scales, especially in time zones.
Sentiment score
7.4
OpenText Operations Orchestration is praised for scalability, handling large architectures seamlessly, and supporting diverse, extensive server networks without downtime.
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
7.7
Control-M is praised for high stability, efficient task handling, minimal administration, and responsive support, despite occasional connectivity issues.
Sentiment score
8.8
IBM Workload Automation is viewed as reliable and stable, with minor issues resolved swiftly, boosting user confidence.
Sentiment score
7.0
OpenText Operations Orchestration's stability has improved, achieving over 90% success despite minor customization and event remediation challenges.
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

Control-M needs better reporting, integration, cost efficiency, UI, offline features, compatibility, and support for new tech and automation.
IBM Workload Automation requires interface improvements, enhanced automation, better support, and lower maintenance costs to improve user experience.
OpenText Operations Orchestration needs better integration, scalability, a modern interface, cloud options, open-source support, and pre-built workflows.
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.
There should be an automation system for developers to set it up more easily and quickly.
The maintenance charges have increased significantly, and a lower cost would be beneficial.
 

Setup Cost

Control-M's task-based pricing can be costly, with complex licensing; CPU options might be more economical for enterprises.
IBM Workload Automation is costly but offers flexible pricing models with cloud advantages and justifies expense with reliability and features.
OpenText Operations Orchestration is seen as costly but offers significant value through cost and time-saving automation capabilities.
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

Control-M enhances operational efficiency with automation, cross-platform integration, user-friendly interface, robust monitoring, and streamlined workflow orchestration.
IBM Workload Automation excels with dynamic scheduling, multiplatform integration, user-friendly GUI, real-time updates, and effective monitoring.
OpenText Operations Orchestration streamlines automation with easy integration, centralized management, and flexible features, reducing deployment time significantly.
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.
One valuable feature of IBM Workload Automation is the ability to combine different applications and platforms to organize jobs together, creating dependencies.
 

Mindshare comparison

Process Automation Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Control-M4.6%
Camunda24.8%
Temporal7.4%
Other63.2%
Process Automation
Workload Automation Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
IBM Workload Automation6.2%
Control-M19.1%
AutoSys Workload Automation10.2%
Other64.5%
Workload Automation
Process Automation Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Operations Orchestration0.7%
Camunda24.8%
Temporal7.4%
Other67.1%
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Ilhami Arikan - PeerSpot reviewer
With an easy setup phase in place, agent-based installation can be done in minutes
Sometimes we have issues with the solution's stability. So, stability can be improved. Reporting and visibility of the solution need improvement. These days, we need more visibility. We need to access the logs and databases easily. You need to keep track of the running number of logs, like which ones are executed, completed, etc. So if there would be a good reporting dashboard, then it would be good. There's room for improvement in the solution since it is a challenging thing when we want to use the solution's technology with our new technologies. For example, if we need to use TWS on our OpenShift platform, the solution's API is not capable enough. So the product itself needs to be aligned with new technologies.
Ahmed Salman - PeerSpot reviewer
Increases productivity with automation and robust orchestration capabilities
The community is very powerful, with extensive knowledge bases available. There are ready-made workflows, integration with other products, a nice user interface, and reporting. The tool is flexible, agent-based or agentless. It allows significant automation and has robust orchestration and reporting capabilities. It is easy to configure and use, leading to increased efficiency across our IT processes.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
866,744 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
30%
Computer Software Company
9%
Retailer
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Healthcare Company
7%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business24
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise109
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise29
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise20
 

Questions from the Community

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 b...
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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Control-M?
Its cost can be more competitive. One of the main things customers look at is the cost. It's not affordable. The cost...
What needs improvement with IBM Workload Automation?
IBM Workload Automation could be improved by reducing its cost. The maintenance charges have increased significantly,...
What is your primary use case for IBM Workload Automation?
We use IBM Workload Automation ( /products/ibm-workload-automation-reviews ) as a scheduler. We install agents on the...
What advice do you have for others considering IBM Workload Automation?
I recommend IBM Workload Automation as it's a well-established and stable product. However, the cost is a concern. Th...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Operations Orchestration?
The pricing is medium, and the automation helps in cost and time savings, resulting in substantial value for money.
What needs improvement with Operations Orchestration?
I would prefer the addition of ready-made workflows for common scenarios such as Oracle database switchovers or Excha...
What advice do you have for others considering Operations Orchestration?
This tool serves as a central management hub, allowing seamless control of various IT processes via one console. I ra...
 

Also Known As

Control M
IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler, IBM TWS
Micro Focus Operations Orchestration, Operations Orchestration, HPOO, HPE Operations Orchestration
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CARFAX, Tampa General Hospital, Navistar, Amadeus, Raymond James, Railinc
Standard Life Group, Banca Popolare di Milano, A*STAR, ArcelorMittal Gent
Casablanca INT, Internet Initiative Japan, Railway Information Systems, Samsung SDS, and Turkcell.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, BMC, Temporal Technologies and others in Process Automation. Updated: August 2025.
866,744 professionals have used our research since 2012.