We performed a comparison between Control-M and vCenter Orchestrator 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."BIM is a good tool to monitor SLAs, and being a financial organization, this is a very good feature for us."
"The File Transfer component is quite valuable. The integration with products such as Informatica and SAP are very valuable to us as well. Rather than having to build our own interface into those products, we can use the ones that come out of the box. The integration with databases is valuable as well. We use database jobs quite a bit."
"We use Control-M for maintenance on our Oracle and SQL Server databases. It automates maintenance on packages, including standard procedures on the databases themselves, snapshots, checking integrity, verifying the RDBMS of the databases, etc. It ensures they aren't clogged and that they are running smoothly and that there aren't any jobs stuck, eating up the performance of the server or any of the CPU cores."
"It has absolutely saved us time. It has made us more efficient. As far as the processing between systems, we don't have as many people. They have been able to focus on other efforts, because we have been able to automate more stuff with Control-M."
"Most valuable feature would be the ability to detect and notify when a process has not completed successfully."
"The most valuable features are the GUI console, stability, and workflow."
"Its compatibility with the new technologies and platforms, like the Google Cloud or Amazon, is the most valuable. Its console allows us to view the duration and execution of a process. It is also very easy to use and easy to implement."
"The product has improved dramatically over the years; it offers a lot in terms of features and capabilities and integration with third-party tools. A wide range of models available with the product is critical in reducing manual and mundane work such as custom script writing. This saves significant amounts of time and, by association, money for the organization."
"The backup and recovery times are very quick."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature for us is the performance stability of vCenter Orchestrator, especially in complex situations, making it excellent for managing virtual machines."
"The solution's ability to template and easily implement are the most valuable features. It offers good replication as well."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the workflow creation."
"The product's integration is good, it works well with other programs and solutions."
"Communication with technical support is very good. It has a repository of knowledge base articles which we can access which are very helpful."
"vCenter Orchestrator is very reliable and stable."
"A smartphone interface would be welcome."
"We have some plug-ins like BOBJ, and we need a little improvement there. Other than that, it has been pretty good. I haven't seen any issues."
"Control-M doesn't have any dynamic reporting facilities or features."
"The stability could be improved. I ran into an issue with a recent Control-M patch. The environment would become unstable if security ports were scanned. This is an area they need to improve on, but ultimately it's a relatively small improvement."
"We would recommend modernizing the look and feel of Control-M. They also need to move towards more self-service and development in their environment. It's very antiquated."
"They can give more predefined plug-ins so that we don't have to create them."
"The Control-M API does not support SQL database-type jobs, where a job has been configured to use the SQL catalog to locate SSIS."
"The next major release needs to focus on the lightweight web client."
"Mainly VMware integrates with other products, but there is no easy way to link with other products from a different vendor. We can integrate with other products from the same vendors fairly well, but if they could make it so integration is easier with other vendors, that would really help."
"There can be compatibility issues."
"The cost of the solution is high."
"I did not do the initial setup. However, it was complex at the beginning."
"I believe a transparent view and better terms of condition between Oracle and vCenter Orchestrator would be helpful."
"I liked the previous client better than the current web client of vCenter Orchestrator, though my colleagues like the client now. The technical support for vCenter Orchestrator needs improvement."
"Storage has room for improvement. It's a big problem for our solution. The interface also needs improvement, it should be simplified."
"The product lacks GUIs. The tool should have more GUIs available, along with easier product documentation."
Control-M is ranked 4th in Process Automation with 109 reviews while vCenter Orchestrator is ranked 9th in Process Automation with 44 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while vCenter Orchestrator is rated 8.4. 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 vCenter Orchestrator writes "Enables us to do administration on a centralized layer when using multiple VMware ESX servers". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Automic Workload Automation, whereas vCenter Orchestrator is most compared with VMware Aria Automation, VMware Aria Operations, vCloud Director, Cisco UCS Director and Microsoft System Center Orchestrator. See our Control-M vs. vCenter Orchestrator report.
See our list of best Process 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.