Control-M vs Rocket Zena comparison

BMC and Rocket Software are both solutions in the Workload Automation category. BMC is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.5, while Rocket Software is ranked #19. BMC holds a 19.9% mindshare in WA, compared to Rocket Software’s 2.6% mindshare. Additionally, 98% of BMC users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Rocket Software users who would recommend it.

Control-M

Read 127 Control-M reviews

20,716 Views
15,744 Comparison Views

98% willing to recommend

Rocket Zena

Read 8 Rocket Zena reviews

1,399 Views
1,399 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Control-M

Rocket Zena

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 15, 2025

Control-M and Rocket Zena are competing in the enterprise automation software market. Control-M stands out for its overall reliability and comprehensive automation capabilities, while Rocket Zena impresses with its modern interface and innovative features.

Features: Control-M offers extensive job scheduling and workload automation that integrates across diverse IT environments. It supports advanced analytics and workload monitoring for multi-cloud systems. Rocket Zena emphasizes dynamic workload automation with cloud-first functionality, agile automation processes, and real-time tracking capabilities.

Room for Improvement: Control-M could benefit from a more modern interface and quicker deployment times. Enhancing cloud-native capabilities would also be advantageous. Rocket Zena needs improvements in stability and customization options. Expanding support for legacy systems could increase appeal to a broader market.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Control-M offers mature deployment processes with extensive support infrastructure praised for timely assistance. Rocket Zena excels in quick deployment and customer-centered support, focusing on flexibility and proactive assistance. Differences in approach make Control-M reliable and Rocket Zena adaptable.

Pricing and ROI: Control-M incurs higher setup costs but ensures extensive ROI through reliable performance and comprehensive features, making it a long-term investment. Rocket Zena offers lower setup costs with rapid ROI, appealing to businesses seeking agility and innovation-driven capabilities. Control-M is valued for sustained efficiency, while Rocket Zena emphasizes cost-effectiveness and innovation.

To learn more, read our detailed Control-M vs. Rocket Zena Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Control-M vs. Rocket Zena

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 866,286 peers since 2012

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 Workload Automation

1st

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

127

Ranking in other categories

Process Automation (2nd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (3rd)

Rocket Zena

Ranking in Workload Automation

19th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Workload Automation category, the mindshare of Control-M is 19.9%, down from 26.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rocket Zena is 2.6%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Workload Automation Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Control-M	19.9%
Rocket Zena	2.6%
Other	77.5%

Workload Automation

Featured Reviews

Mark_Francome

Senior System Specialist at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees

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.

Read full review

JuanGonzalez6

IT Solutions Manager at a government with 5,001-10,000 employees

A continuously evolving, stable solution, with responsive support

The visual whiteboard for design and execution included with the solution is very crucial to those who are new to Rocket Zena, especially so that the learning curve is minimized and they can focus on accomplishing the task. We process our system's payroll through Rocket Zena. The fact that it's a multi-process, multi-layered application, means that we can rely on the solution for kicking off processes, notifying user vendors of the steps, completions, error logging, and historic events from the previous run times. Rocket Zena's ability to automate jobs on the mainframe as a distribution workload automation solution is good. The solution continuously improves over time. We're eager to start the latest upgrade this coming year that'll put us on the cloud. Hopefully, this will improve the product even more. We can run things natively without the scheduler if needed. The solution working properly and up to date without the need for a mainframe scheduler is crucial. We use the solution to manage a few complex operational workflows end-to-end across multiple technology stacks. Rocket Zena does a great job of simplifying our cross-platform processes through automation. The solution helps speed operations up and keeps them automated allowing us to focus on other priorities. The solution helps increase our completion rates by working overnight to meet our SLAs. Rocket Zena completes 30 percent of our workload outside of our standard work hours. Rocket Zena's cross-platform job scheduling helped us save around 40 percent of programming time by automating repetitive tasks. We use the solution to transfer our current files and keep up with our infrastructure on a few automated jobs, such as refreshing our database which happens overnight. The solution helped free up around 15 percent of our engineer's time to focus on more value-added work.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."

"We are using Control-M for day-to-day operations only. It is helpful for us in our day-to-day operations. It is a key in our financial sector. We are automating via Control-M in our treasury operations, including any evening updates. Control-M makes things easier and faster by helping our treasury operations go without any interruptions."

"The pressure on our operations and our maintenance has been reduced."

"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."

"By implementing automation tools, you can minimize human errors and improve efficiency."

"The solution has the power to reduce resources, which is good for business. It is constantly updated to remain compatible with new technologies such as Amazon, Azure, and Google Cloud. It's very easy to take advantage of the compatibilities."

"It is simple to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines and to ingest data from different platforms. It integrates well between platforms."

"As soon as you have an issue, a ticket is created and the tech support is quite responsive."

More Control-M pros

"Its FTP feature is very good, as is scheduling any process or task with the Zena client. I have found it to be very helpful. If a task fails, it gives you a prompt."

"We haven't had any problems since we installed it. It runs as expected, we haven't had any critical problems. It helps keeps the business running 24/7."

"I like the whole product, but specifically, I like the license part. It's very easy to acquire a license for this product."

"I have found the scheduling feature the most valuable. I can map dependencies by using ASG-Zena. It gives a nice, quick visualization as to where things are."

"In the latest upgrade, Zena added a web-based client. The more I use it, the more I like it. It's an excellent interface. They do a good job of steadily improving the solution to make it more useful."

"From a Linux configuration point of view, Rocket Zena is straightforward. It's fairly easy to set up the server and agents once you know how to do it."

"You can click Ctrl-G and bring a diagram view. You're able to view in a diagram format. The view that it provides is easy, and you can move to the left, up, or down. You can double-click on a certain process. It'll drill into that process and all of its underlying components. You can double-click on an arrow or a component, and it'll bring up a screen that'll have all the variables that are assigned to that particular piece, as well as the values at run time. So, the diagram feature of it, at least for me, is pretty valuable."

"The most valuable feature is the FTP file transfer."

Cons

"I would like to have a web version of Control-M to replace the client. Currently, our support and jobs-creation teams are using the client and that needs to be installed on a PC. It's very heavy, consuming a lot of resources compared to the web portal. I know that they're trying to improve the client with the latest version, but for me, there hasn't been enough improvement yet."

"We did encounter a few scalability issues. Sometimes, there are too many jobs in our environment on different servers, but that’s not the tool issue, we can simply increase the FS size. However, that requires bank cost; hence the scalability issue."

"I would like not to have to reach out to a third-party application company to do automated notifications. Right now, we still have people manually calling people and emailing people. There's a company called xMatters - and there are others - that has an API through Control-M that can automate any aspect of failure management. I'd like to see it build right into the product. I'd like to see a better notification product."

"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."

"Its initial setup is a bit complex. They could provide more documentation and tutorials to make the initial setup easier to understand. Enhancing the documentation could simplify the setup process."

"The history module only contains a maximum of 10 days, but we would like to have access to more. For example, it would be helpful to have 30 days or two months of history available."

"Its architecture is old. AutoSys gives more flexibility."

"Control-M reporting isn't that good. It is very limited. We would like the ability to create our own reports as well as the ability to publish dashboards in the cloud, which would help us. Improved reporting will help us determine statuses and get the answers that we need. However, I personally think BMC is not focusing on the reporting. I have even visited the BMC office in India, and asked, "Why haven't you improved the reporting?""

More Control-M cons

"In the web interface, it stacks the tasks across the top, and they accumulate until you close or clean those out. That seems a little cumbersome. You must right-click and close all tabs constantly to keep the console clean and manage your views."

"The UI is not intuitive, and it would be nice if there was a web interface."

"The scheduling mapping is a little disjointed. There is no wizard-type approach. There are a lot of different things that you have to do in completely different areas. They could probably add the functionality for creating all components of a mapping or an OPA schedule. The component creation could be done collectively rather than through individual components."

"Another one that is probably a little bit bigger for me is that when there is an issue or there's an error, it writes on a different screen. I have to find the actual process name and go to a different screen to view the alert that got generated. On that screen, everyone's processes, not just the processes of the folks in my department, are thrown. It takes me a while to find the actual error so that I could go in there and look at the alert. It could be because of the way it was set up, but at least for me, it isn't too intuitive."

"In the next release, I would like the user experience to be improved. The user interface should be more appealing to gen-z."

"Rocket Zena is a mainframe-based job scheduler. I would like it to be more open so that we can use it on a distributed platform."

"One area where it could be improved is communication between the different servers. Sometimes there are processes that have already been completed but we get a status notification that they're still active."

"The documentation has room for improvement."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Its cost can be more competitive. One of the main things customers look at is the cost. It's not affordable. The cost is very high, according to my customers."

"Pricing varies depending on which components and modules you are using."

"We have a license till 2024. We are good and satisfied with it."

"The pricing is moderate, not too low or too high compared to other solutions."

"Pricing is generally affordable, though some features cost a bit more."

"This is an area where it is a little difficult to work with BMC. They want to do licenses by job, which is what we have. For example, the simplest is to license by job, but they can also license by nodes. While the licensing is simple to use, it might not be the correct licensing model for the customer. It is okay because we want to license by job, which is something measurable. At the end of the day, licensing by job is the most important."

"We are paying way more for Control-M than we've paid for any of our other scheduling tools."

"Cost-wise, it is good."

More Control-M pricing and cost advice

"The pricing and the licensing are good. It is affordable and can be used to improve and optimize productivity."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

866,286 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

26%

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

Insurance Company

Financial Services Firm

29%

Insurance Company

13%

Computer Software Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	24
Midsize Enterprise	12
Large Enterprise	108

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Large Enterprise	6

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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 is very high, according to my customers. The licensing cost is very high, and t...

See all answers

Do you have any tips for managing my company's modernization, without any disruptions?

Today, we will look at the legacy systems, the red flags that point at the system getting old and rusty, and the ways a reliable custom software. This guide: https://www.cleveroad.com/blog/legacy-s...

See all answers

Comparisons

AutoSys Workload Automation vs Control-M

Compared 13% of the time

Redwood RunMyJobs vs Control-M

Compared 8% of the time

Automic Automation vs Control-M

Compared 8% of the time

IBM Workload Automation vs Control-M

Compared 6% of the time

ESP Workload Automation Intelligence vs Control-M

Compared 4% of the time

More Control-M Competitors

IBM Workload Automation vs Rocket Zena

Compared 16% of the time

Rocket Zeke vs Rocket Zena

Compared 15% of the time

AutoSys Workload Automation vs Rocket Zena

Compared 6% of the time

JAMS vs Rocket Zena

Compared 5% of the time

Stonebranch vs Rocket Zena

Compared 4% of the time

More Rocket Zena Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Control-M

August 2025

Download Control-M product report

Buyer's Guide

Rocket Zena

August 2025

Download Rocket Zena product report

Also Known As

Control M

ASG-Zena

Interactive Demo

BMC

Demo not available

Rocket Software

Overview

Control-M by BMC offers orchestration for hybrid cloud workflows, starting at $29,000 annually. It's designed for teams managing dependencies efficiently with automation and scheduling capabilities.

Control-M is known for its automation, integration, and scheduling capabilities. It provides a user-friendly GUI for seamless third-party application integration and robust file transfer capabilities. Role-based administration features, self-service portals, and the ability to handle complex workflows enhance operational efficiency. Its control modules enable diverse integrations, while forecasting, monitoring, and alerting functionalities improve reliability and adaptability across platforms, making it essential for orchestrating tasks efficiently.

What are Control-M's key features?

User-Friendly GUI: Offers intuitive interface for easy navigation.
Seamless Third-Party Integration: Facilitates smooth interaction with other tools.
Robust File Transfer: Ensures reliable and secure data movement.
Role-Based Administration: Enhances security and access control.
Self-Service Portal: Enables users to manage tasks independently.
Forecasting and Monitoring: Provides predictive insights for better planning.

What benefits and ROI should users look for?

Operational Efficiency: Streamlines processes and reduces manual tasks.
Improved Reliability: Minimizes errors with automated workflows.
Real-Time Insights: Offers visibility into job performance and system status.
Scalability: Adapts to growing business needs.
Integration Flexibility: Supports diverse applications and environments.

Control-M is vital in industries like financial services, data management, and IT operations. It automates batch processing, job automation, and file transfers, supporting applications such as SAP, Oracle, and Informatica. This enhances transparency, reduces errors, and provides insights into job performance and system status.

BMC

Rocket Zena offers scheduling and dependency mapping, intuitive interface, and containerized deployment. It simplifies workflow automation, enhancing efficiency across platforms.

Rocket Zena's strengths lie in its scheduling capabilities, graphical interface, and efficient deployment. It supports users in task management with cross-platform scheduling, streamlining repetitive tasks through automation. The web-based client facilitates process visualization and workflow management, while the notification system enhances task handling. Users can manage mainframe, Linux, and Windows environments while integrating with SAP and Oracle, ensuring comprehensive automation and efficient job execution.

What are the key features of Rocket Zena?

Scheduling and Dependency Mapping: Manages tasks efficiently with a graphical interface.
Containerized Deployment: Simplifies deployment and improves efficiency.
FTP Capabilities: Facilitates secure file transfers and backups.
Web-based Client and Whiteboard: Enhances process visualization and control.
Cross-Platform Scheduling: Automates repetitive tasks, reducing manual intervention.

What benefits and ROI should users expect?

Enhanced Efficiency: Automates complex tasks, freeing time for value-added work.
Improved Accuracy: Minimizes manual errors with reliable automation.
Streamlined Task Management: Simplifies workflow with intuitive notification systems.
Easy Integration: Supports SAP, Oracle, and other enterprise platforms.

In industries like finance and manufacturing, Rocket Zena plays a vital role in scheduling batch jobs and automating file transfers. It helps adapt task scheduling to business calendars and integrate with existing platforms, ensuring a smooth workflow that meets business objectives.

Rocket Software

Sample Customers

CARFAX, Tampa General Hospital, Navistar, Amadeus, Raymond James, Railinc

Fraternidad Muprespa

Buyer's Guide

Control-M vs. Rocket Zena

July 2025

Free Report: Control-M vs. Rocket Zena

Find out what your peers are saying about Control-M vs. Rocket Zena and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

866,286 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Control-M vs. Rocket Zena 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.