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

Control-M vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 13, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Control-M
Ranking in Process Automation
2nd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
183
Ranking in other categories
Managed File Transfer (MFT) (2nd), Workload Automation (1st), AI IT Support (1st)
Microsoft System Center Orc...
Ranking in Process Automation
18th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of Control-M is 3.7%, down from 4.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft System Center Orchestrator is 1.3%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Control-M3.7%
Microsoft System Center Orchestrator1.3%
Other95.0%
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

RP
Batch Admin at NBC Universal
Brings data together from multiple platforms and optimizes cross-environment orchestration
The features of Control-M that I like the most include the ability to easily integrate or bring in different platforms into Control-M. For instance, AWS, mainframe, TWS, and something that's running on Autosys can all be brought into Control-M, converted to how Control-M runs it, and then the batch can be executed. This centralizes various applications in Control-M, which doesn't just have to handle batch processes, but also other tasks like reporting on required data. I find this functionality very useful and the setup is impressive, with more advancements yet to come. With Control-M, my company has achieved several measurable improvements since I started. The metrics indicate that the number of failures has dropped, and we have addressed the issue of excessive false alerts that I encountered when I joined. Previously, we received an overwhelming number of alerts daily, but now we manage to maintain that at a normalized level, perhaps around five to fifteen alerts, depending on running core batches and their setup.
Dan Campeanu - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Engineer at ProVision
Automates tasks and manages multiple servers from a central location
The initial setup was quite complex. It required careful preparation of installation steps, as many tasks were not automated as expected. Special attention was needed to prepare groups, users, and permissions at each step to ensure a smooth setup process. Please do so accurately to avoid having to start over. Challenges encountered during deployment included issues with installation and configuration and difficulties detecting machines and executing tasks as expected. Some solutions were found through trial and error during installation, while others were discovered through recommendations from other users. Despite these challenges, the deployment and rollout of Orchestrator took approximately one and a half months to ensure proper functionality.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Control-M is the best choice because for a company, it is an infrastructure, and every company should have one workload automation product."
"The best features include the solutions with the recent AI version; the recent updates are impressive, as they allow for automatic jobs, which help improve our productivity."
"There is a batch monitoring tool called Batch Impact Manager, which proactively warns when processing is behind and SLAs are in jeopardy of being missed."
"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."
"Because it's a tool which allows us to do scheduled work, it allows for notifications when jobs aren't running within that scheduled time frame. This improves the opportunity to meet SLAs."
"We used Control-M's Python Client and cloud data service integrations with AWS and, as a feature, it was very customizable. It gave us a lot of flexibility for customizing whatever data maneuver we wanted to do within a pipeline."
"Control-M is infinitely scalable. We only need to add agents. BMC will take care of it if you need anything on the SaaS side, but we can handle the rest using our agent architecture."
"First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate."
"Automation is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"It can manage multiple servers and workstations from a single location."
 

Cons

"I'm currently working on the SaaS version, but I've also worked on the on-prem versions before. There is a handful of features that haven't been added to the SaaS version, and the BMC knows that. It's a matter of time before they prioritize the missing pieces and bring them into the SaaS version."
"With earlier versions, the support was not accurate or delivered in a timely manner. What would happen is that I would be in production mode and I would have an issue and would want to get someone on a call to see what was happening. But they would always say, “Hey, provide the log first and then we'll review and we'll get back to you." I feel that when a customer asks about a production issue, they should jump onto the call to see what is going on, and then collect the logs."
"The stability of Control-M has Not been great. A big thing we've been trying to work on with BMC is observability. Modern applications should be observable and resilient, but we're finding that sometimes Control-M is not very resilient and many times Control-M is not very observable."
"The documentation could be improved, and I'd also like to see automatic upgrades."
"Integration with some applications and platforms is complex and requires development. We have done some integration with the application integrator, but it was more like a manual solution. This is an area that can be improved."
"Consider adding a mobile application for remote management."
"The licensing cost can be improved."
"They could enhance the product's data flow, job processing speed, and efficiency."
"The product's management aspect needs enhancement."
"I find the Orchestrator UI to be problematic."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"One of the restrictions that we had was with some of the licensing, and not having any insight on the financials part of the product. I don't know what the licensing on the product is, but we don't have an unlimited enterprise license. So, there might be a limitation on either the cost of the licensing or the number of seats."
"I rate the solution's price a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is low or really affordable, and ten is high or really expensive. It is a really expensive tool."
"We have a five-year contract with task-based licensing."
"The product price is reasonable. I rate the pricing an eight."
"Licensing costs are around $3000 a year."
"Its pricing and licensing could be a little bit better. Based on my experience and discussions with other existing customers, everybody feels that the regular Managed File Transfer piece, not the enterprise one, is a little overpriced, especially for folks who already have licensed Advanced File Transfer. We understand that Advanced File Transfer is going away and is going to be the end of life, and there is some additional functionality built into MFT, but the additional functionality does not really correlate with the huge price increase over what we're paying for AFT already. This has actually driven a lot of people to look for alternative solutions."
"I switched to this solution within the last year. I switched from the servers payment package to the job payment package, and it is very expensive."
"The license model is based on the number of jobs we run on the SaaS application or the number of executions, unlike the on-premise model options. If we have a handful of jobs, it's always good to consider Control-M, but if it's a large number of jobs, Control-M might not be a great option."
"I give the cost of the solution a five out of ten."
"We obtained a license that bundled Windows Server with System Center at no additional cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
27%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Insurance Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business37
Midsize Enterprise23
Large Enterprise140
No data available
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Control-M?
From what I know about pricing, I would probably put Control-M in the expensive category, but you do pay for what you get; you are paying for a premium product.
What do you like most about Microsoft System Center Orchestrator?
It can manage multiple servers and workstations from a single location.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft System Center Orchestrator?
The platform was almost free of cost for us. We obtained a license that bundled Windows Server with System Center at no additional cost.
What needs improvement with Microsoft System Center Orchestrator?
The product's management aspect needs enhancement. It affects the visibility of powerful scripts that were previously accessible. Furthermore, the focus is shifting towards cloud-based features, sp...
 

Also Known As

Control M, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer, BMC Australia CTM
MS System Center Orchestrator
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

The Bank of East Asia, LINE Bank Taiwan, Coop, Air Europa, Carrefour, Itau Unibanco, Snam, Embraer, ANZ Bank, EDP, Dominio's, Tampa General Hospital, W&W Informatik GmbH, Veterans General, Up Sí Vale, Sky Italia, REWE digital GmbH, Raymond James, Railinc, Navistar, Management Science Associates, Colruyt, CARFAX, Banpara, Aspiag Service, Amadeus, AG Insurance, ING Bank Slaski
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Control-M vs. Microsoft System Center Orchestrator and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.