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

Control-M vs JAMS comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 14, 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
6.6
Control-M automates operations, reduces costs, and improves efficiency, offering swift ROI and enhanced service levels for large enterprises.
Sentiment score
6.3
JAMS automates job management, reducing costs and labor while enhancing efficiency and allowing staff to focus on critical tasks.
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.
The design of JAMS makes it very easy to copy jobs and make minimal changes while ensuring functionality.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.2
Control-M's customer support is praised for responsiveness and expertise, despite occasional slow responses, offering strong resource availability.
Sentiment score
6.4
JAMS offers impressive, knowledgeable support with quick, effective solutions, proactively addressing user needs through various channels.
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.
Their response is prompt, exemplifying how support should be.
They are very quick to respond depending on the issue's severity.
We contacted JAMS vendor, who guided us through the necessary steps, and after following their guidance, everything was resolved.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
Control-M efficiently scales across enterprise levels, managing extensive jobs, though costs may impact its otherwise robust capabilities.
Sentiment score
6.6
JAMS efficiently scales to handle thousands of jobs daily, offering flexibility, ease, and consistent performance, though licensing may limit scalability.
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.
We might be underutilizing it, but as more jobs require processing, additional servers would be necessary.
JAMS's scalability is noteworthy; we run 6,000 jobs per day without facing any problems.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Control-M is highly stable and reliable, handling large workloads efficiently with minimal downtime or disruptions.
Sentiment score
7.4
JAMS is stable and reliable, with the desktop version praised, while rare issues are due to external factors.
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.
We experience periods of major incidents annually due to capacity constraints, which result in job failures.
Being on the new version, there's been zero downtime.
 

Room For Improvement

Control-M needs better flexibility, reporting, integration, scalability, UI, cloud and AI support, documentation, and streamlined upgrades.
JAMS users seek enhanced UI, search, automation, security, AI integration, and documentation to improve functionality and performance.
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.
Another area for improvement would be the addition of source control for jobs internally, as this feature would solve several problems for me.
A major improvement would be the integration of AI to help us accomplish various tasks.
If around 5,000 or more jobs run at a time, JAMS slows down, and we have to wait around five to 10 minutes or restart JAMS scheduler services.
 

Setup Cost

Control-M's complex pricing reflects robust features valued by enterprises, justifying the premium cost despite competitive alternatives.
JAMS offers competitive pricing for enterprise scheduling, with flexibility in licensing and lower costs than Control-M and Tivoli.
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.
The price is fair considering the functionality and importance of the tool, although the increase did unsettle our management.
 

Valuable Features

Control-M offers user-friendly GUI, extensive integration, efficient scheduling, real-time monitoring, mobile access, and centralized workload management features.
JAMS offers automation, intuitive scheduling, and integration, enhancing efficiency with flexible workflows, PowerShell support, and responsive user assistance.
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.
JAMS has positively impacted my organization by completely removing the headache of scheduling jobs, not just for the organization but for all internal operations teams need.
This efficient feature has been invaluable, enabling us to streamline our workflow and enhance productivity.
The most valuable feature of JAMS is its user-friendly interface, especially after upgrading from version six to seven.
 

Categories and Ranking

Control-M
Ranking in Workload Automation
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
138
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (2nd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (4th)
JAMS
Ranking in Workload Automation
3rd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Workload Automation category, the mindshare of Control-M is 18.9%, down from 26.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of JAMS is 2.1%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Workload Automation Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Control-M18.9%
JAMS2.1%
Other79.0%
Workload 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.
Patrick Norton - PeerSpot reviewer
Support has been among the most helpful and knowledgeable we've ever worked with but performance monitoring needs improvement
The monitoring of the JAMS product and its performance is an area of concern for me. I also need better tools to adopt version seven. Another area for improvement would be the addition of source control for jobs internally, as this feature would solve several problems for me. JAMS has some quirks. It has a bit of a learning curve. Some exceptions are not intuitive, such as when a job is terminated due to exceeding its defined runaway time limit. This generates a misleading exception message that is difficult for new users to understand and requires experience to interpret correctly. Stalled jobs present a unique challenge, particularly when pushing a system like JAMS version six to its limits. While rare, these instances occur when jobs become unresponsive despite appearing in API queries but not in the monitoring console. Although workarounds exist, they highlight the need for improved native monitoring capabilities within JAMS. Currently, the system assumes flawless operation, necessitating supplemental monitoring tools to detect issues like excessive pending or stalled jobs, ensuring timely intervention by our teams.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
27%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business26
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise114
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise18
 

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 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.
What do you like most about JAMS?
I find the historical tracking feature of JAMS invaluable for reviewing past events.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for JAMS?
They recently switched to subscription-based pricing, which increased. The price is fair considering the functionality and importance of the tool, although the increase did unsettle our management.
What needs improvement with JAMS?
As far as we are using JAMS version 6, it looks good and there is nothing major to add about it. Everything is functioning properly. From the past three years, it has remained the same, but sometim...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Control M
No data available
 

Interactive Demo

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CARFAX, Tampa General Hospital, Navistar, Amadeus, Raymond James, Railinc
Teradata, Arconic, General Dynamics, Yum!, CVS Health, Comcast, Ghiradelli, & Boston’s Children’s Hospital
Find out what your peers are saying about Control-M vs. JAMS and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.