Globalscape Managed File Transfer vs Kiteworks comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Globalscape Managed File Transfer and Kiteworks 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.
To learn more, read our detailed Globalscape Managed File Transfer vs. Kiteworks Report (Updated: November 2022).
655,994 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"Control-M is useful to automate all critical and non-critical processes. Using Control-M, we can automate application workflows as well as file transfers involved in application workflows. We can also use it to run batches related to applications. Automating these processes reduces the RTO and RPO, which helps in the case of failures. It also helps us to identify bottlenecks and take corrective measures.""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 initial setup is straightforward.""It has certainly helped speed things up.""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.""My organization has been able to script scheduled jobs in Control-M to potentially replace legacy products that are at end of life or end of service. The previous backup applications that were being used for specific files, folders, or applications were no longer being supported, therefore being able to use Control-M to replace that has been very valuable.""The integration with ServiceNow is good. When a job ends and there are problems with it, we automatically open an incident in this platform, and the number of the incident is forwarded to Control-M. This means that we have a record of it with the log of the job.""The initial setup is largely straightforward."

More Control-M Pros →

"It made things easier. Before, there were five to 10 different software solutions spread out over 10 different servers. Now, everything is being centralized into one location; facilitating, supporting, maintaining, training people, etc. There have been gains just because Globalscape EFT is more efficient at moving things around than our previous other applications. For instance, if I am connecting to someone over the Internet or transmitting for the client, the speed of transmitting those files through SFTP is 20% to 30% faster than our previous automated solution. Therefore, we have seen time savings.""The most valuable feature is the automation engine, because it allows you to script or program and it has lots of different features and options. It's something like an IDE for programmers, where they can add variables, arrays, loops, et cetera.""The Event Rules functionality is a key feature. It is very simple to understand and work with. If you have a support team that doesn't know anything about coding, they can really relate to the way event rules are designed. So, I try to make them as simplistic as possible when we create file transmissions. When I first started working in Globalscape, a lot of the file transmissions were handled through Advanced Workflow, which is a similar product. We had a lot of scripts in Advanced Workflow. I moved them to Event Viewer in Globalscape because of the simplicity of building scripts and understanding how they work. It literally takes 5 to 10 minutes to set one up, but if you're in an advanced workflow, it could take an hour to two hours to understand via code what it is actually doing. It has definitely been a plus.""Its ease of use is most valuable. Especially for the configuration of the rules, we don't need to have any scripting knowledge. Previously, we used to have a lot of custom scripts to transfer these files. Now, it's all managed in one place, and it's like a self-service. It's saving a lot of time for us.""The fact that it is Windows-based was a huge factor for us because most of our endpoints are Windows-based. And the ability to configure it means standardization is available with the product.""The High Security Module is valuable. It allows for increased security. It allows me to integrate Globalscape with our Active Directory. So, we manage all our customer accounts outside of Globalscape, and it allows us to import them with LDAP queries. It's very convenient. It also gives our customers the confidence that it's a very secure product.""The Advanced Workflow Engine it comes with is brilliant because it allows us to create scripts and perform behind-the-scenes jobs that would otherwise require a third-party solution... You would have to create a special code on the outside to get all that other stuff done in the background. With Globalscape, we can get all of that done in one package."

More Globalscape Managed File Transfer Pros →

"The best part of this solution is that we can generate multiple reports about how the data is transferred and about user information or IP.""The initial setup is straightforward.""The solution can be used remotely; it's easy to upload and share files.""We can see when people are sending things. We can definitely see who is sending to whom. From the administrative logs, we can see who is sending to an outside entity, and those logs are retained for quite a while.""The solution removes the limitations with file attachment size that is found with regular email."

More Kiteworks Pros →

Cons
"They can improve their interface.""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.""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.""Control-M reporting is a bit of a pain point right now. Control-M doesn't have robust reporting. I would like to see better reporting options. I would like to be able to pull charts or statistics that look nicer. Right now, we can pull some data, but it is kind of choppy. It would be nicer to have enterprise-level reporting that you can present to managers.""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.""With earlier versions, the support was not accurate or delivered in a timely manner. What would happen is that I would be in production mode and I would have an issue and would want to get someone on a call to see what was happening. But they would always say, “Hey, provide the log first and then we'll review and we'll get back to you." I feel that when a customer asks about a production issue, they should jump onto the call to see what is going on, and then collect the logs.""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 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 →

"Another area for improvement is the ARM (Auditing and Reporting Module) database, in terms of accuracy and the data being logged.""I do have some complaints or concerns around the centralized platform for the management of file transfer operations, and I know that they're working towards a better solution there. At its core, it's a good feature, but needs some improvements. I would like to see a web interface so that there is universal support across versions, because we have test and production environments that aren't always in sync. It would be nice to have one administrative interface to access both.""In the beginning, it could be considered a bit challenging.""The folder monitoring services need improvement. Currently, with the folder monitoring services in Globalscape, if any changes are made to our firewalls, network, or something else that affects the directory services where the files are located, for some reason, the folder monitoring services get cut out, and the files are left there. They remain in the folder without being sent. I have over 50 file transmission processes that I would have to go to manually re-drop a file into the folder so that it processes the file transmission. There are times where even though I re-drop a file, it still doesn't work. In that case, I have to resynchronize the folder monitoring process, and it is a very big headache on my side that I have to deal with. It is not only related to Globalscape or their development team. It is on our side too. I just sent a support case where we found out yesterday that we had a file transmission that hasn't run in a whole year, and it was an important one. No one on the business side or the IT support side, as well as the vendor, had indicated that the file wasn't received or the data hadn't been updated. I found out that it was the folder monitoring service that was the problem when I initially had the problem last October, and this was the file that I just missed. So, I re-dropped the file in yesterday, and the monitor worked. It runs every week, so we sent a file to that folder, and it processed that out.""Instead of using a fat client to access the administrator panel, where you have to install client software on any server that you need to use to access, I would like them to switch to a web-based model where you could connect from anywhere without having to maintain and install the software.""There are two ways to install Globalscape: as a standalone server or as a high-availability server, either Active-Active or Active-Standby. We are currently using standalone servers. That means if we want to upgrade the software, I shut down one of the two back-end servers, upgrade the software, make sure everything is correct, and then turn traffic back on to that one. I then proceed to upgrade the second server. With their high-availability solution, that is not a possibility. Both servers have to be shut down to perform the upgrade. We're a 24/7 shop. We don't have a window where we can have downtime.""We need some capability for faster transfers and large file transfers. If we want to transfer a terabyte file, it is not capable of doing that right now. They say it is possible, but we are not able to do so with our environment."

More Globalscape Managed File Transfer Cons →

"File location could be improved.""The user interface is not great.""In my experience, their technical support can be a little slow.""We have experienced a few hiccups and bugs when using the admin console and from a user perspective.""The one feature, which I have also requested directly to Kiteworks, is to have a scheduled upgrade function. Currently, one of my engineers logs in after hours for the upgrade. We're a hospital, and we're 24/7, but the primary users are seven to five. So, we log in the early evening just to push a button to tell it to do the update. It would be nice if that could be very easily scheduled."

More Kiteworks Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The cost is basically $100 a job, give or take."
  • "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."
  • "The cost of the hardware is high. Because you need to license each job, it is costly."
  • "You're going to spend a lot of money upfront, but the benefits you're going to get out of it are going to quickly pay for it."
  • "Initially, our licensing model was based on the number of jobs per day. That caused some issues because we were restricted to a number. So at our renewal time we said, 'We want to convert from number of jobs to number of endpoints.' That cost us extra money but it gave us additional capabilities, without worrying about the number of jobs."
  • "BMC's price is based on the number of jobs."
  • "You must accept that BMC licensing can be very confusing. No one can easily understand how they calculate things, whether it is user-based, job-based, or server-based. The calculation is quite tough. How BMC calculates licensing is not easily available anywhere."
  • "There are human costs in addition to the standard pricing and licensing of this solution."
  • More Control-M Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "We are paying around 30K per year."
  • "It is much more competitively priced. Axway is probably three or four times more expensive than Globalscape. I like the server-based license. It's easier to manage than a seat license, which our previous product Axway had. Axway's license model is to charge by the account while Globalscape's model is by the server. It is much simpler and much easier when audit time comes."
  • "A large factor in our decision to go with Globalscape was the price."
  • "It is a very good product in terms of purchase. It didn't cost that much, even with the way we had scaled and architecturally put things in place. It is definitely comparable to other products."
  • "Globalscape is not cheap, but you get what you pay for. The cost is worth the value of the product. What you're getting is a good, stable solution that does a lot."
  • "Maintenance and services for Globalscape EFT have an annual price tag, and it is not cheap."
  • "The on-prem licensing is very good. It's a perpetual license and I would advise others to purchase that license. That way, you don't have to pay yearly."
  • More Globalscape Managed File Transfer Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It is not really expensive. I mean, to me it's obviously expensive, but it's worth it."
  • "I believe it's a little costly, but given the faith that we put into it from a security perspective to maintain the integrity of our patient information that is being transferred through this system, that's a small price to pay. So, on the surface, it might look like a lot of money, but depending on the need for security, which is where we feel it shines, it's okay price-wise."
  • More Kiteworks Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions are best for your needs.
    655,994 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Control-M acts as a single, centralized interface for monitoring and managing all batch processes, which is helpful… more »
    Top Answer:Hi! I don't know the "Oracle DAC Scheduler", but I can say that in most competitive solutions Control-m stands out in… more »
    Top Answer:It is controlling our workflows, ingesting data, and then putting it up into our database platforms. In turn, those are… more »
    Top Answer:The most valuable feature is the automation engine, because it allows you to script or program and it has lots of… more »
    Top Answer:The on-prem licensing is very good. It's a perpetual license and I would advise others to purchase that license. That… more »
    Top Answer:The solution’s centralized platform for the management of file transfer operations is good, although improvements could… more »
    Top Answer:Kiteworks is a secured file sharing platform that enables users to collaborate with different parties across a robust… more »
    Top Answer:The initial setup is straightforward.
    Top Answer:The user interface is not great and can be improved.
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Control M
    Globalscape GlobalSCAPE Managed File Transfer
    Accellion
    Learn More
    Fortra
    Video Not Available
    Overview

    Control-M simplifies application and data workflow orchestration on premises or as a service. It makes it easy to build, define, schedule, manage, and monitor production workflows, ensuring visibility, reliability, and improving SLAs.

    • Accelerate new business applications into production—by embedding workflow orchestration into your CI/CD pipeline
    • Scale Dev and Ops collaboration, with a Jobs-as-Code approach
    • Simplify workflows across hybrid and multi-cloud environments with AWS, Azure and Google Cloud Platform integrations
    • Deliver data-driven outcomes faster, managing big data workflows in a scalable way
    • Take control of your file transfer operations with integrated, intelligent file movement and visibility

    Globalscape is consistently recognized for providing top-notch solutions for securing and automating file transfers for Windows-centric organizations. 

    Kiteworks empowers organizations to effectively manage risk in every send, share, receive, and save of sensitive content over numerous communications channels: email, file sharing, managed file transfer, APIs, and web forms. The Kiteworks platform unifies, tracks, controls, and secures sensitive content moving within, into, and out of an organization, significantly improving risk management and ensuring regulatory compliance.

    Offer
    Learn more about Control-M
    Learn more about Globalscape Managed File Transfer
    Learn more about Kiteworks
    Sample Customers
    CARFAX, Tampa General Hospital, Navistar, Amadeus, Raymond James, Railinc
    Information Not Available
    United States Securities and Exchange Commission, National Health Service, Husch Blackwell LLP, NYC Health + Hospitals, Viatris, MITRE Corporation, Chubb, Kraft Heinz, KPMG, Kohler, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Purdue Pharma, AVL
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Retailer8%
    Healthcare Company7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm25%
    Computer Software Company19%
    Insurance Company9%
    Comms Service Provider5%
    REVIEWERS
    Manufacturing Company14%
    Pharma/Biotech Company14%
    Computer Software Company14%
    Energy/Utilities Company14%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company36%
    Financial Services Firm12%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    Manufacturing Company5%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Government14%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Computer Software Company10%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business12%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise79%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business14%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise77%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business10%
    Large Enterprise90%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business29%
    Midsize Enterprise16%
    Large Enterprise55%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business13%
    Large Enterprise88%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business19%
    Midsize Enterprise12%
    Large Enterprise68%
    Buyer's Guide
    Globalscape Managed File Transfer vs. Kiteworks
    November 2022
    Find out what your peers are saying about Globalscape Managed File Transfer vs. Kiteworks and other solutions. Updated: November 2022.
    655,994 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Globalscape Managed File Transfer is ranked 7th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 7 reviews while Kiteworks is ranked 9th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 5 reviews. Globalscape Managed File Transfer is rated 8.4, while Kiteworks is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Globalscape Managed File Transfer writes "Saves us a huge amount of time and programming work, compared to a plain FTP solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiteworks writes "Easy user adoption, top-notch support, and a 10/10 as a file-sharing application". Globalscape Managed File Transfer is most compared with AWS Transfer for SFTP, MOVEit, Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct and IBM Sterling File Gateway, whereas Kiteworks is most compared with AWS Transfer for SFTP, Box, Fortra GoAnywhere MFT and Microsoft Office SharePoint Server. See our Globalscape Managed File Transfer vs. Kiteworks 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.