We performed a comparison between Control-M and Nintex Process Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Process Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."If they have ad hoc requirements, then they can theoretically schedule their own file transfers with the Self Service. We are trying to push as much work back to the customers or developers that have that requirement, because they prefer to help themselves, if possible. We try empowering them and enabling them through Control-M, especially for file transfers, because it is a much broader base of the business then just with batch scheduling. Typically, with SAP batch scheduling, it would work with dedicated teams. With file transfers, the entire business is involved. There are business users, end users, etc. It definitely needs to be as simple as possible and as managed as well as possible. They need to manage it themselves, if possible, because our team is not growing but the number of customers, applications, and jobs are growing. We need to hand back some of the responsibility to the customer for them to resolve and action it."
"It provides a unified view where you can orchestrate and monitor all your application workloads and data pipelines. That's very important because with cloud, software as a service, edge computing, traditional data center, and legacy apps, there are all these environments. If you don't have that single pane of glass or that one place to look at, you're going to invest a lot of time and resources into tracking things down when they go wrong."
"It gives us the ability to have end-to-end workflows, no matter where they're running."
"Control-M has enabled true enterprise batch automation, which combined with the other BMC Control products on our mainframe platform, allows us to run a 24/7 site with the lights out."
"We have a better picture of our auditability. When someone comes to us, and asks for sources, "How did the deltas occur?" We can provide answers quickly, or at least quicker than what we used to. We are actually sure of the information that we provide, where before it was like, "Hmm, I think it comes from over there. Let me double check, but it gets really convoluted over here and I think that is where it comes from." Now, if it is within the Control-M environment, it has a straightforward answer that we can provide with confidence."
"The scheduling and management were really good. Monitoring was also better. It had a good visual presentation. It showed me charts and all such things. It was really good on that side."
"The File Watcher utility, cyclic jobs, and email alert notification are valuable."
"Our ability to integrate with many different solutions has been invaluable. The new approach of the automation API and jobs-as-code is also valuable."
"Allows to use workflow for simple approvals and LazyApproval. The feature is easy to implement for mobile approval."
"This tool set makes it easy to integrate current processes and increase adoption rates and usage for the tool, as well as the process changes to update it on the fly."
"The solution offers very good integration capabilities. We've never had issues integrating it without solutions."
"Only Nintex has the feature which allows attachments to an email."
"It has integration with BI and Analytics tools, and RPA toolsets as well."
"Provides the ability to automate SharePoint processes (building sites, lists, updating content). You can also automate document and content processes, onboarding and offboarding, and general IT and HR solutions."
"NWC forms could be better. Also, the ability to build workflows that are not dependent on SharePoint is very desirable. The forms feature just isn’t as functional as the forms for SharePoint."
"It can scale well."
"There is definitely room for improvement. Version 9.0.20 actually comes with a web-based interface, but there are still a lot of things unavailable with it. There will eventually be more inclusions added into the web interface, but there is still a long way to go."
"The unifying features between Control-M for different platforms needs improvement. The scheduling options on the Control-M mainframe jobs are different than they are on our Linux server. There are a few differences here and there."
"The company has been working with BMC on the MFT. There are still some things about MFT which don't work the way that we want with our needs. So, we would like to see that improved."
"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."
"Some of the features are not available. We were about to deploy the REST API, but we had some challenges. We had to use a third-party application. So, it should be improved in terms of integrating REST API jobs. That was something that was lacking. The customer was not that happy in terms of getting the desired output. So, we had to use a third-party application called Hangfire. We would like to have more videos on REST API integration, and we would like to have easy integration with the Control-M application through the REST API."
"While they have a very good reporting facility, the reports that I'm asked to produce, a lot of times aren't necessarily what we need."
"Everybody's biggest gripe is the reporting capability option. It is a gripe because there is a lot of information in Control-M, but the solution doesn't have a good reporting tool to extract that information. Now, if you want all that information, you need to rely on another third-party BI tool to extract the information out of Control-M."
"We develop software. More frequently, we are working with microservices and APIs, using our integration tool, MuleSoft. While Control-M is really a good tool to integrate with other tools, it is important for them to continue improving their microservices and API."
"At times, issues arise in certain scenarios. In such cases, the versioning can become quite difficult. There may be no other way but to restart the entire process or rectify it at that point."
"Built-in reporting on-prem is limited and clunky at best."
"Hawkeye is emerging as a reporting solution, but as a V1 product it’s not very useful yet."
"Currently, a notable challenge lies in the alignment of user experiences across the eight or nine applications within the suite. Transitioning between applications can be somewhat cumbersome due to varying user interfaces. However, the provider is actively addressing this concern by consistently rolling out updates every four to five months, aimed at harmonizing and streamlining the interfaces. This ongoing effort is expected to enhance the user experience over time. In terms of functionality and features, the platform stands out, offering flexibility with the option for both on-premises and cloud deployment. This flexibility extends to the RPA tool, providing clients with choices tailored to their preferences. An advantage lies in the shared security and data infrastructure across the toolset, facilitating smooth data transfer between applications. This contrasts with experiences with Oracle, where data transfer may involve complexities such as the need for intermediary file formats like TXL or SCZ."
"The solution does not integrate with many platforms."
"I would also like to see the BPM features from Pega implemented, that have to do with the implementation of AI, and the robotics."
"K2 is a workflow solution, and there is no RPA solution with K2. This is where K2 lacks a little bit. It is just a heavy workflow solution. It doesn't have a supplemental product like RPA. If you want to use RPA, you have to use Blue Prism, UIPath, or something else. If you use Nintex, it has an RPA solution. It is a form-based application, and they are doing everything electronically. The initial investment in K2 is heavy because it is a BPM software. It does not have a low cost because they charge you the same for one workflow or 100 workflows."
"The tool lacks to offer support for the Arabic language, and it needs consideration."
Control-M is ranked 4th in Process Automation with 110 reviews while Nintex Process Platform is ranked 8th in Process Automation with 21 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while Nintex Process Platform is rated 8.0. 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 Nintex Process Platform writes "Offers good integration capabilities and easy to learn and good stability". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Automic Workload Automation, whereas Nintex Process Platform is most compared with Camunda, IBM BPM, Appian, Pega BPM and SAP Signavio Process Manager. See our Control-M vs. Nintex Process Platform report.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors and best Workload Automation vendors.
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.
