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

Control-M vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.4
Control-M reduces long-term costs through automation, efficiency, better resource management, and enhanced integration, leading to workforce optimization.
Sentiment score
7.1
webMethods.io delivers rapid ROI through cost savings, reduced downtime, and increased productivity, depending on specific implementations.
The main return on investment with Helix Control-M has been a reduction in downtime and minimization of manual interventions, which has improved our operational efficiency.
You can run a million batch jobs or tasks at night when all of your highly skilled people are at home sleeping.
It has reduced the total cost of ownership by 30% to 40%.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.4
Control-M technical support is praised for responsiveness and expertise, despite rare criticisms for slow ticket processing and response delays.
Sentiment score
6.6
webMethods.io's customer service is praised for responsiveness, but users note occasional delays and desire improved technical support communication.
The technical support is very polite, helpful, and available 24/7.
If something fails at 3 AM in the morning, you need to fix it and get it back up and working really quickly.
Solutions are available on the web.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Control-M efficiently scales with minimal issues, handling extensive workloads, though resource enhancement is necessary for optimal cloud integration.
Sentiment score
7.2
webMethods.io is praised for its scalability in cloud and on-premises environments, with some licensing constraints noted.
It can absorb more workload wherever needed.
I would rate it a nine out of ten for scalability.
As the workload on Control-M increases, its scalability is much higher.
Vertically, scalability is fine, however, I have not expanded horizontally with the product yet.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Control-M is stable and reliable, efficiently handling large workloads with regular updates and minimal disruptions.
Sentiment score
7.6
webMethods.io is generally stable and reliable, with minor issues in specific modules and cloud version maturity needed.
The downtime is higher compared to AWS.
The stability of the Helix Control-M solution is good.
There are some issues like the tool hanging or the need for additional jars when exposing web services.
 

Room For Improvement

Control-M users desire enhanced features, integration, reduced costs, seamless upgrades, better customization, and improved support and documentation.
webMethods.io needs clearer documentation, better scalability, intuitive interfaces, and improved integration and cost-effectiveness for enhanced user experience.
They could provide more documentation and tutorials to make the initial setup easier to understand.
What they've done about scheduling, other people are still trying to figure out.
There should be an automation system for developers to set it up more easily and quickly.
A special discount of at least 50% for old customers would allow us to expand our services and request more resources.
 

Setup Cost

Control-M's high pricing suits enterprises needing robust automation, but challenges smaller organizations with complexity and additional feature costs.
Enterprise buyers find webMethods.io costly but valuable, offering flexibility and comprehensive solutions, particularly beneficial for large-scale enterprises.
Pricing is generally affordable, though some features cost a bit more.
The best cell phone will always be more expensive.
It is a little bit expensive.
 

Valuable Features

Control-M excels in automation, integration, and user interface, enhancing workflow management with scheduling, file transfer, and API capabilities.
webMethods.io excels in seamless integration, user-friendliness, robust security, and scalability, offering efficient tools and reliable management for diverse needs.
The user interface is comprehensive and lets me view all my jobs on one page, monitor everything, and access the job history.
Automation is more advanced, deployment is fast, and version control has been simplified.
The best feature is that we can automate everything.
It facilitates the exposure of around 235 services through our platform to feed various government entities across the entire country.
 

Categories and Ranking

Control-M
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
121
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (3rd), Workload Automation (1st)
webMethods.io
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), API Management (10th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Managed File Transfer (MFT) category, the mindshare of Control-M is 4.6%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 2.2%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Managed File Transfer (MFT)
 

Featured Reviews

Pedro Fuentes - PeerSpot reviewer
Cost-effective, excellent support, and centralized access and control
They have a department that handles requests for enhancements. I talked to Control-M guys back in October or November when they had a gathering here in Atlanta. We talked about not being able to go back in history in Helix Control-M for more than two weeks. We submitted a request for enhancement. They told us that they are working on it, and they are thinking of expanding that to 30 days. We would like to see it expand to 90 days, but they are working on it. In Control-M, we were able to go back 180 days, but that was on-prem. The storage of that data was on our own servers. We know that storage is money, and we do not expect them to store that much of the data, but at least 30 to 60 days seem proper.
Michele Illiano - PeerSpot reviewer
Can function as an ESB along with the core product, with decent integration of message protocols
I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance. This is why, for most customers who have to deal with big files, I suggest that they use a product other than ActiveTransfer. I would like to note that this problem mainly concerns large files that undergo extra operations, such assigning, unassigning, or file translation. When these operations take place on large files, ActiveTransfer will use up a lot of resources. Within the product itself, I also believe that there is room for improvement in terms of optimization when it comes to general performance. I suspect that the issues underlying poor optimization are because it is all developed in Java. That is, all the objects and functions that are used need to be better organized, especially when it comes to big files but also overall. webMethods ActiveTransfer was born as an ESB to handle messages, and these messages were typically very short, i.e. small in size. A message is data that you have to send to an application, where it must be received in real-time and possibly processed or acknowledged elsewhere in the system as well. So, because it was initially designed for small messages, it struggles with performance when presented with very large files. All this to say, I suggest that they have an engineer reevaluate the architecture of the product in order to consider cases where large files are sent, and not only small ones. As for new features, compared to other products in the market, I think Software AG should be more up to date when it comes to extra protocol support, especially those protocols that other solutions have included in their products by default. Whenever we need to add an unsupported protocol, we have to go through the effort of custom development in order to work with it. Also, all the banks are obligated to migrate to the new standards, and big companies are all handling translations and operating their libraries with the new protocol formats. But webMethods ActiveTransfer doesn't seem to be keeping up with this evolution. Thus, they should aim to be more compliant in future, along the lines of their competitors such as IBM and Primeur.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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 do you like most about Built.io Flow?
The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.
What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.
 

Also Known As

Control M
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CARFAX, Tampa General Hospital, Navistar, Amadeus, Raymond James, Railinc
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Control-M vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.