We performed a comparison between Control-M and TIBCO Managed File Transfer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We value Control-M mainly for the ability to control multiple nodes in a coordinated manner. Control-M has the ability to really coordinate across a lot of nodes."
"If a job fails, that development team is notified right away, which improves reliability. Previously, it was on the operators to notify the developers that their job failed, erred, or aborted. Now, it's all automated."
"We have a team called pro-mon and they monitor all the jobs for us. A single view for them makes it easy for them to monitor things."
"The most valuable features are the GUI console, stability, and workflow."
"The unified view where you can define, orchestrate, and monitor applications, workflows, and data pipelines is important because we have more than one team working on Control-M. We have a support team, a job-creation team, and a SAP team. We can all work together on it. It avoids anyone from working on his part and not using the latest modifications."
"We are now able to deliver data to our data warehouses and dashboards promptly."
"Self Service, BIM features are most valuable. As no need to login to EM client and check the job status."
"The initial setup is largely straightforward."
"They have great multi-factor authentication for extra security."
"TIBCO has its own integration tool."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to do centralized administration."
"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."
"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."
"A Control-M on-prem license is based on the number of jobs, which is the number of tasks a particular customer wants to have. These tasks have to be run within 24 hours window. For example, if you have a license for 100 jobs, you can run a maximum of 100 jobs in a 24-hour window. If your operations could not run 10 jobs, and they ran only 90 jobs, they just carry over to the next day, but the next day, they will have 110 jobs. Control-M asks you to buy those 10 more licenses because you were out of compliance in terms of the number of licenses. This is something that needs to be indicated in Control-M GUI so that customers know the number of licenses they're going to use in this time window. Their support and documentation should be improved. I am not that satisfied with their customer support. Sometimes, they don't have the answers. Their documentation is very poor. It is not well written, and it is not in a very logical manner. You can use it on Unix, Linux, Windows, and AIX, but it needs some improvement on iSeries. It needs a built-in mechanism inside the system to give you an option to restore from the last point of failure. If a process crashes, the Control-M needs to have a mechanism in iSeries where the process can be restored from the last point of failure."
"The performance could be better. Control-M Enterprise Manager tends to slow the system down even on a server with a six-core processor and 32 gigabytes RAM. The console is Java-based, so maybe OpenJDK 16 or 17 would be a performance improvement."
"The community and the networking that goes on within that community need improvement. We want to be able to reach out to an SME, and say, "Hey, we are doing it this way. Does that make sense?" Ideally, they come back. and say, "Yes, it does make sense to do it that way. However, if you want to do it this way, then it is a little more efficient." We understand that one solution framework doesn't fit everybody. Depending on the breadth of the data and how broad it is, you may have different models for one over the other."
"I would like to see automatic license management. And probably more importantly, some kind of machine learning to help identify the optimum automation path."
"I think it's slightly expensive but at the same time it's a good product."
"Reporting in Control-M could use improvement."
"I think some of the automated deployment features could use some assistance, which is an area where it currently lacks. The product needs some ability to help it with the deployment model, which is a little difficult."
"The UI could be better."
"Their cloud product is not yet stable."
Control-M is ranked 2nd in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 110 reviews while TIBCO Managed File Transfer is ranked 15th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 3 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while TIBCO Managed File Transfer is rated 7.6. 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 TIBCO Managed File Transfer writes "Serves as a straightforward SFTP server that offers reasonably good support". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Automic Workload Automation, whereas TIBCO Managed File Transfer is most compared with IBM Sterling File Gateway, Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer, MOVEit and CA XCOM Data Transport. See our Control-M vs. TIBCO Managed File Transfer report.
See our list of best Managed File Transfer (MFT) vendors.
We monitor all Managed File Transfer (MFT) 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.
