Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
Control-M Logo

Top 10 Control-M Alternatives

Vendor: BMC
4.3 out of 5
Badge Ranked 1
Leave a review

Top Control-M Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Control-M based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Camunda, Appian, and MuleSoft Anypoint Platform. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. Control-M surpasses its competitors by offering comprehensive workflow automation, seamless integration, and enhanced visibility, enabling organizations to optimize complex processes efficiently and securely, thus increasing productivity and reducing operational costs significantly.

BMC Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with BMC, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
Control-M Logo
Camunda
4.1 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Camunda
4.1 out of 5
Control-M offers robust automation with cross-platform support, high availability, and predictive analytics. In comparison, Camunda provides flexibility with its open-source model and a solid BPMN engine, ideal for organizations seeking customizable workflow automation solutions.
Download Camunda vs. Control-M Report
Control-M's setup cost is generally higher than Camunda's, reflecting its broader feature set and premium support options. Camunda offers a more budget-friendly setup cost, appealing to organizations with tight initial budgets.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M's setup cost is generally higher than Camunda's, reflecting its broader feature set and premium support options. Camunda offers a more budget-friendly setup cost, appealing to organizations with tight initial budgets.
Control-M Logo
Appian
4.2 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Appian
4.2 out of 5
Appian offers rapid development and low-code app deployment, focusing on ease of use and quick app creation. In comparison, Control-M provides detailed workflow monitoring and extensive scheduling support for large enterprises. Appian excels in support, while Control-M meets complex scheduling needs.
Download Appian vs. Control-M Report
Appian entails a higher setup cost while Control-M offers a more budget-friendly initial setup expense. This pricing distinction underscores the more substantial initial investment required for Appian compared to the more economical setup option provided by Control-M.
View comparison
Pricing
Appian entails a higher setup cost while Control-M offers a more budget-friendly initial setup expense. This pricing distinction underscores the more substantial initial investment required for Appian compared to the more economical setup option provided by Control-M.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
MuleSoft Anypoint Platform
4.0 out of 5
Control-M excels in automation and cross-platform scheduling, ideal for industries needing robust management, like banking. In comparison, MuleSoft Anypoint Platform offers strong API management, making it suitable for hybrid cloud integrations with extensive connector support for diverse technologies.
Download Control-M vs. MuleSoft Anypoint Platform Report
Control-M offers a higher initial setup cost, while MuleSoft Anypoint Platform provides a more affordable entry point, highlighting their distinct pricing strategies.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M offers a higher initial setup cost, while MuleSoft Anypoint Platform provides a more affordable entry point, highlighting their distinct pricing strategies.
Control-M Logo
Pega Platform
4.1 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Pega Platform
4.1 out of 5
Pega Platform appeals to enterprises with its adaptability and business process management, despite needing UI and integration improvements. In comparison, Control-M excels in scheduling and integration for workflow management, but could enhance reporting and API operations, particularly in cloud environments.
Download Control-M vs. Pega Platform Report
Pega Platform involves a higher initial setup cost, whereas Control-M offers a more budget-friendly setup option.
View comparison
Pricing
Pega Platform involves a higher initial setup cost, whereas Control-M offers a more budget-friendly setup option.
Control-M Logo
IBM BPM
3.9 out of 5
Control-M Logo
IBM BPM
3.9 out of 5
Control-M offers cross-platform job scheduling and integrates with tools like SAP, making it ideal for automating batch processes. In comparison, IBM BPM provides robust process modeling capabilities, benefiting businesses seeking strong integration with IBM's ecosystem for effective process execution.
Download Control-M vs. IBM BPM Report
Control-M features a straightforward setup process with modest costs, while IBM BPM involves a more complex installation with potentially higher expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M features a straightforward setup process with modest costs, while IBM BPM involves a more complex installation with potentially higher expenses.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
AutoSys Workload Automation
4.2 out of 5
Control-M offers advanced scheduling, application integration, and automation, ideal for large enterprises despite its cost. In comparison, AutoSys is more cost-effective with essential scheduling features, suitable for organizations valuing budget over high-end capabilities but seeking efficient workload automation.
Download AutoSys Workload Automation vs. Control-M Report
Control-M typically incurs a higher setup cost compared to AutoSys Workload Automation, which often has lower initial expenses. This reflects a significant difference in their cost structures, potentially impacting budget considerations.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M typically incurs a higher setup cost compared to AutoSys Workload Automation, which often has lower initial expenses. This reflects a significant difference in their cost structures, potentially impacting budget considerations.
Control-M Logo
Automic Automation
4.2 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Automic Automation
4.2 out of 5
Control-M excels in integrating with legacy systems and offers extensive automation tools, making it ideal for environments like banking. In comparison, Automic Automation provides a customizable scripting language, offering flexibility across platforms, appealing to users requiring tailored workflow solutions and adaptable pricing.
Download Automic Automation vs. Control-M Report
Control-M's setup costs are generally considered higher, but many users find the investment worthwhile for its enterprise capabilities, while Automic Automation offers a more budget-friendly setup option, appealing to organizations seeking cost efficiency.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M's setup costs are generally considered higher, but many users find the investment worthwhile for its enterprise capabilities, while Automic Automation offers a more budget-friendly setup option, appealing to organizations seeking cost efficiency.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
IBM Workload Automation
4.0 out of 5
IBM Workload Automation provides a holistic view and superior ERP connectivity, ideal for real-time monitoring. In comparison, Control-M excels with vast integration support and robust file transfer capabilities, making it suitable for extensive environments and those needing flexible cloud integration.
Download Control-M vs. IBM Workload Automation Report
IBM Workload Automation features a higher initial setup cost compared to Control-M, offering distinct benefits to enterprise users. Control-M provides a more cost-effective entry point, appealing to businesses seeking advanced workload management without high upfront expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Workload Automation features a higher initial setup cost compared to Control-M, offering distinct benefits to enterprise users. Control-M provides a more cost-effective entry point, appealing to businesses seeking advanced workload management without high upfront expenses.
Control-M Logo
SnapLogic
3.9 out of 5
Control-M Logo
SnapLogic
3.9 out of 5
Control-M enhances workflow with features like cross-platform support and a mobile app, making it ideal for banking. In comparison, SnapLogic's low-code approach and AI capabilities accelerate integration for complex data needs. SnapLogic's cost-effectiveness suits flexible deployments.
Download Control-M vs. SnapLogic Report
Control-M setup costs are higher, focusing on enterprise-level needs, while SnapLogic offers a more competitive initial setup, appealing to businesses seeking cost-efficiency. Differences in pricing reflect their respective target markets and feature sets.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M setup costs are higher, focusing on enterprise-level needs, while SnapLogic offers a more competitive initial setup, appealing to businesses seeking cost-efficiency. Differences in pricing reflect their respective target markets and feature sets.
Control-M Logo
Redwood RunMyJobs
4.8 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Redwood RunMyJobs
4.8 out of 5
Control-M integrates with AS400 for task automation and offers advanced file transfer, while Redwood RunMyJobs excels in event-driven automation with SAP integration. In comparison, Control-M's hybrid deployment is flexible; Redwood RunMyJobs provides cloud strength. Each has substantial pricing considerations and ROI potential.
Download Control-M vs. Redwood RunMyJobs Report
Control-M involves significant initial setup costs, whereas Redwood RunMyJobs offers a more cost-effective installation.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M involves significant initial setup costs, whereas Redwood RunMyJobs offers a more cost-effective installation.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
IBM Sterling File Gateway
3.9 out of 5
Control-M excels in job automation with extensive integration and error handling. In comparison, IBM Sterling File Gateway focuses on secure file transfers and protocol support. Both serve distinct needs: Control-M for versatile workflows, IBM Sterling for reliable, secure data transfers.
Download Control-M vs. IBM Sterling File Gateway Report
Control-M has a lower setup cost, appealing for budget-conscious companies, while IBM Sterling File Gateway's setup cost may be higher, offering more advanced features. Control-M's simplicity contrasts with the comprehensive capabilities found in IBM Sterling File Gateway.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a lower setup cost, appealing for budget-conscious companies, while IBM Sterling File Gateway's setup cost may be higher, offering more advanced features. Control-M's simplicity contrasts with the comprehensive capabilities found in IBM Sterling File Gateway.
Control-M Logo
GoAnywhere MFT
4.4 out of 5
Control-M Logo
GoAnywhere MFT
4.4 out of 5
Control-M excels in complex scheduling and cross-platform integrations, making it ideal for enterprises with diverse automation needs. In comparison, GoAnywhere MFT offers streamlined, secure file transfers and data exchange, appealing to those prioritizing straightforward workflows and a user-friendly interface.
Download Control-M vs. GoAnywhere MFT Report
Control-M involves significant setup costs, while GoAnywhere MFT offers a more budget-friendly implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M involves significant setup costs, while GoAnywhere MFT offers a more budget-friendly implementation.
Control-M Logo
MOVEit
4.0 out of 5
Control-M Logo
MOVEit
4.0 out of 5
Control-M offers extensive automation for complex scheduling and third-party integrations, making it ideal for enterprises with diverse IT environments. In comparison, MOVEit excels at secure file transfers and multi-channel support, catering to organizations prioritizing data transfer reliability and traceability.
Download Control-M vs. MOVEit Report
Control-M has a higher setup cost compared to MOVEit, making MOVEit a more affordable initial option.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a higher setup cost compared to MOVEit, making MOVEit a more affordable initial option.
Control-M Logo
AWS Step Functions
4.2 out of 5
Control-M Logo
AWS Step Functions
4.2 out of 5
Control-M offers robust automation and integration for diverse banking operations, ideal for AS400 systems. In comparison, AWS Step Functions provides cloud-native workflows with seamless integration and an intuitive interface. Both solutions present complex pricing but significant ROI when optimized for enterprise needs.
Download AWS Step Functions vs. Control-M Report
Control-M involves a higher setup cost compared to AWS Step Functions, making Control-M more suitable for complex enterprise requirements, while AWS Step Functions offers a more cost-effective solution for simple workflow operations.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M involves a higher setup cost compared to AWS Step Functions, making Control-M more suitable for complex enterprise requirements, while AWS Step Functions offers a more cost-effective solution for simple workflow operations.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
Nintex Process Platform
3.9 out of 5
Nintex Process Platform emphasizes workflow automation, integrating seamlessly without coding. In comparison, Control-M excels in comprehensive workload automation with advanced scheduling and monitoring. A tech buyer might choose Nintex for ease of use or Control-M for managing complex enterprise tasks efficiently.
Download Control-M vs. Nintex Process Platform Report
Nintex Process Platform setup cost is straightforward and budget-friendly, contrasting with Control-M's complex and higher-cost setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Nintex Process Platform setup cost is straightforward and budget-friendly, contrasting with Control-M's complex and higher-cost setup.
Control-M Logo
Temporal
4.3 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Temporal
4.3 out of 5
Control-M offers extensive automation features across platforms, ideal for banking with legacy systems integration. In comparison, Temporal excels in long-running workflow management in microservice architectures. Both serve diverse environments, but Control-M's complexity contrasts with Temporal's simpler, open-source cost advantages.
Download Control-M vs. Temporal Report
Control-M has a higher setup cost compared to Temporal, which offers a more budget-friendly option.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a higher setup cost compared to Temporal, which offers a more budget-friendly option.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
Ab Initio Co>Operating System
4.5 out of 5
Ab Initio Co>Operating System is ideal for businesses prioritizing data processing and scalability. In comparison, Control-M attracts those needing seamless workflow management and integration. Tech buyers may choose Ab Initio for long-term efficiency, while Control-M is appealing for quicker setup and integration.
Download Ab Initio Co>Operating System vs. Control-M Report
Ab Initio Co>Operating System generally has a higher setup cost compared to Control-M, while Control-M is noted for its more predictable setup expenses. This difference highlights distinct financial commitments required for initial implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
Ab Initio Co>Operating System generally has a higher setup cost compared to Control-M, while Control-M is noted for its more predictable setup expenses. This difference highlights distinct financial commitments required for initial implementation.
Control-M Logo
Stonebranch
4.4 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Stonebranch
4.4 out of 5
Control-M is tailored for complex enterprise needs with robust automation capabilities, while Stonebranch offers a straightforward platform with strong agent technology. In comparison, Control-M's comprehensive modules may overwhelm, but Stonebranch provides cost-effective integration and ease of use for stability-seeking organizations.
Download Control-M vs. Stonebranch Report
Control-M's setup cost is relatively higher, while Stonebranch offers a more budget-friendly initial installation fee.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M's setup cost is relatively higher, while Stonebranch offers a more budget-friendly initial installation fee.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
ServiceNow Orchestration
4.1 out of 5
Control-M offers superior job scheduling, integration, and DevOps automation adaptability. In comparison, ServiceNow Orchestration deeply integrates with ServiceNow’s suite, making it ideal for existing ecosystem users. Control-M's flexible deployments contrast with ServiceNow's strong cloud presence, offering diverse buyer choices based on infrastructure preferences.
Download Control-M vs. ServiceNow Orchestration Report
Control-M has higher setup costs, making it more suitable for larger organizations, while ServiceNow Orchestration offers a more cost-effective setup option, appealing to businesses with budget constraints.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has higher setup costs, making it more suitable for larger organizations, while ServiceNow Orchestration offers a more cost-effective setup option, appealing to businesses with budget constraints.
Control-M Logo
Tidal by Redwood
4.5 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Tidal by Redwood
4.5 out of 5
Control-M offers robust functionality with extensive third-party integrations, appealing to enterprises with complex IT needs. In comparison, Tidal by Redwood's competitive pricing and flexible licensing attract cost-conscious organizations, emphasizing affordability and ease of use for streamlined deployment and enterprise adaptability.
Download Control-M vs. Tidal by Redwood Report
Control-M incurs substantial setup costs, whereas Tidal by Redwood offers more budget-friendly implementation options. This stark difference highlights Control-M's potentially higher entry expenses compared to Tidal.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M incurs substantial setup costs, whereas Tidal by Redwood offers more budget-friendly implementation options. This stark difference highlights Control-M's potentially higher entry expenses compared to Tidal.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct
4.1 out of 5
Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct is ideal for secure, reliable file transfers, offering straightforward deployment. In comparison, Control-M excels with extensive scheduling features and integrations, providing a holistic solution for complex automation workflows. Control-M's higher setup cost supports its advanced functionality and customization.
Download Control-M vs. Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct Report
Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct has higher initial setup costs, focusing on secure file transfers, while Control-M offers a lower setup cost with comprehensive scheduling and automation capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct has higher initial setup costs, focusing on secure file transfers, while Control-M offers a lower setup cost with comprehensive scheduling and automation capabilities.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
ActiveBatch by Redwood
4.6 out of 5
Control-M excels with cross-platform scheduling and SAP support, ideal for larger enterprises. In comparison, ActiveBatch's flexibility and cost-effectiveness cater to diverse environments. Control-M's robust capabilities justify its expense, while ActiveBatch offers good value with ease of integration and extensive libraries.
Download ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Control-M Report
Control-M involves a higher setup cost compared to ActiveBatch by Redwood, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment for users.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M involves a higher setup cost compared to ActiveBatch by Redwood, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment for users.
Control-M Logo
VisualCron
4.5 out of 5
Control-M Logo
VisualCron
4.5 out of 5
Control-M offers advanced automation and extensive integration options suited for complex environments. In comparison, VisualCron provides visual job management with simplicity. Control-M suits banking needs with robust features, while VisualCron appeals to those prioritizing ease and affordability.
Download Control-M vs. VisualCron Report
Control-M has a higher setup cost compared to VisualCron, which is more budget-friendly. The significant cost difference highlights Control-M's more robust infrastructure and enterprise features, while VisualCron offers a more accessible entry point for smaller organizations.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a higher setup cost compared to VisualCron, which is more budget-friendly. The significant cost difference highlights Control-M's more robust infrastructure and enterprise features, while VisualCron offers a more accessible entry point for smaller organizations.
Control-M Logo
Rocket Zena
4.3 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Rocket Zena
4.3 out of 5
Control-M appeals with its competitive pricing and efficient support, attracting cost-sensitive buyers. In comparison, Rocket Zena's advanced features justify its higher costs, appealing to those prioritizing innovation and functionality. Control-M’s ease of deployment contrasts with Rocket Zena’s adaptable and agile approach.
Download Control-M vs. Rocket Zena Report
Control-M has a significant setup cost, while Rocket Zena offers a more budget-friendly option, highlighting a notable price difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a significant setup cost, while Rocket Zena offers a more budget-friendly option, highlighting a notable price difference between the two solutions.
Control-M Logo
OpCon
4.6 out of 5
Control-M Logo
OpCon
4.6 out of 5
Control-M offers extensive cross-platform support and robust automation, appealing to enterprises needing diverse connectivity. In comparison, OpCon targets credit unions with strong core system integration, simplifying processes. Control-M's pricing can be high, while OpCon's task-based licensing facilitates scalability.
Download Control-M vs. OpCon Report
Control-M's setup cost is higher than OpCon, which offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M's setup cost is higher than OpCon, which offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
Control-M Logo
JAMS
4.4 out of 5
Control-M Logo
JAMS
4.4 out of 5
Control-M attracts larger enterprises with complex needs due to its comprehensive feature set and integration capabilities. In comparison, JAMS offers cost-effective solutions with simple deployment and ease of use, appealing to organizations seeking flexible scheduling automation without high expenses.
Download Control-M vs. JAMS Report
Control-M incurs higher setup costs compared to JAMS, which offers a more affordable setup pricing structure.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M incurs higher setup costs compared to JAMS, which offers a more affordable setup pricing structure.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
ESP Workload Automation Intelligence
4.0 out of 5
Control-M's competitive pricing and deployment ease attract budget-conscious buyers. In comparison, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence appeals to those valuing advanced analytics and automation, despite higher costs, offering strategic insights for smarter decision-making and potentially greater long-term returns.
Control-M offers a straightforward setup at a higher initial cost, while ESP Workload Automation Intelligence provides a more complex setup with a lower upfront expense.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M offers a straightforward setup at a higher initial cost, while ESP Workload Automation Intelligence provides a more complex setup with a lower upfront expense.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer
3.9 out of 5
Axway AMPLIFY focuses on cost-effective, secure file transfers with easier integration. In comparison, Control-M enhances workflow automation and flexible scheduling. Tech buyers may prefer Axway for affordable data transfer or Control-M for comprehensive automation in complex IT setups.
Download Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer vs. Control-M Report
Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer offers a more flexible setup cost, while Control-M has a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer offers a more flexible setup cost, while Control-M has a higher initial investment.
Control-M Logo
BizTalk Server
3.7 out of 5
Control-M Logo
BizTalk Server
3.7 out of 5
BizTalk Server excels in complex enterprise application integration, making it ideal for businesses needing extensive protocol support. In comparison, Control-M offers superior workload automation and scheduling, appealing to organizations prioritizing efficient job scheduling and streamlined operational processes.
Download BizTalk Server vs. Control-M Report
BizTalk Server requires significant initial setup costs, while Control-M offers a relatively lower cost for deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
BizTalk Server requires significant initial setup costs, while Control-M offers a relatively lower cost for deployment.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
OpenText Operations Orchestration
3.9 out of 5
Control-M appeals to cost-conscious buyers with competitive pricing, job scheduling, and robust support. In comparison, OpenText Operations Orchestration requires higher investment but offers extensive integrations and adaptive orchestration, making it attractive for enterprises seeking scalability and enhanced operational efficiencies.
Download Control-M vs. OpenText Operations Orchestration Report
Control-M has higher setup costs due to its extensive features, while OpenText Operations Orchestration offers a more budget-friendly initial expenditure. Control-M's complex integration contrasts with OpenText's straightforward setup process, appealing to businesses seeking cost-effect...
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has higher setup costs due to its extensive features, while OpenText Operations Orchestration offers a more budget-friendly initial expenditure. Control-M's complex integration contrasts with OpenText's straightforward setup process, appealing to businesses seeking cost-effect...
Control-M Logo
JSCAPE by Redwood
4.5 out of 5
Control-M Logo
JSCAPE by Redwood
4.5 out of 5
Control-M excels in workflow orchestration with cross-platform capabilities, ideal for complex environments. In comparison, JSCAPE specializes in secure data exchange with advanced protocols and encryption, suitable for organizations prioritizing scalable security. Each solution offers distinct advantages based on diverse operational needs.
Download Control-M vs. JSCAPE by Redwood Report
Control-M setup cost is considered higher compared to JSCAPE by Redwood, which is known for its more cost-effective implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M setup cost is considered higher compared to JSCAPE by Redwood, which is known for its more cost-effective implementation.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
HCL Workload Automation
4.0 out of 5
Control-M is preferred for its predictive analytics and high-volume task management, ideal for large enterprises. In comparison, HCL Workload Automation stands out for its flexibility across various environments and integration with DevOps tools, appealing to businesses prioritizing adaptability and modern infrastructure.
Control-M has a higher setup cost, making it more suitable for larger enterprises, while HCL Workload Automation offers a more affordable setup, appealing to smaller organizations. The price difference highlights their distinct target markets and organizational needs.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a higher setup cost, making it more suitable for larger enterprises, while HCL Workload Automation offers a more affordable setup, appealing to smaller organizations. The price difference highlights their distinct target markets and organizational needs.
Control-M Logo
Globalscape EFT
4.1 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Globalscape EFT
4.1 out of 5
Control-M offers advanced automation and integration for complex environments, ideal for large enterprises. In comparison, Globalscape EFT provides secure file transfer and centralized management, appealing to organizations prioritizing cost-effective, straightforward data transfer solutions. Both solutions feature strong customer support for deployment needs.
Download Control-M vs. Globalscape EFT Report
Control-M setup costs are known to be higher compared to Globalscape EFT, which offers a more affordable initial pricing. This cost distinction highlights a major pricing difference between the two solutions in financial planning and budgeting.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M setup costs are known to be higher compared to Globalscape EFT, which offers a more affordable initial pricing. This cost distinction highlights a major pricing difference between the two solutions in financial planning and budgeting.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
Dollar Universe Workload Automation
3.3 out of 5
Control-M, known for its robust features and extensive support, excels in scalability and integration, making it ideal for larger enterprises. In comparison, Dollar Universe Workload Automation, with intuitive configuration and lower cost, suits businesses prioritizing simplicity and budget constraints.
Download Control-M vs. Dollar Universe Workload Automation Report
Control-M typically involves higher initial setup costs, while Dollar Universe Workload Automation presents a more budget-friendly option. Users seeking cost efficiency in setup might prefer Dollar Universe over Control-M's complex investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M typically involves higher initial setup costs, while Dollar Universe Workload Automation presents a more budget-friendly option. Users seeking cost efficiency in setup might prefer Dollar Universe over Control-M's complex investment.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
AppWorx Workload Automation
4.1 out of 5
Control-M excels with robust API integration and a feature-rich environment for complex scheduling. In comparison, AppWorx offers simplicity and reliability, ideal for those seeking comprehensive functionality and cost efficiency in workload automation.
Download AppWorx Workload Automation vs. Control-M Report
Control-M typically incurs higher setup costs, while AppWorx Workload Automation offers a more cost-effective initial setup, highlighting a key difference in their financial accessibility for businesses considering workload automation solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M typically incurs higher setup costs, while AppWorx Workload Automation offers a more cost-effective initial setup, highlighting a key difference in their financial accessibility for businesses considering workload automation solutions.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence
1 out of 5
Control-M offers intuitive scheduling and real-time data monitoring, making it ideal for users valuing simplicity and efficient setup. In comparison, CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence excels with robust customization and deep analytics, appealing to those managing complex environments and seeking tailored solutions.
Control-M has a straightforward setup cost, while CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence requires a more complex initial investment. This distinction highlights the differing implementation approaches and potential initial financial impact for each solution.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a straightforward setup cost, while CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence requires a more complex initial investment. This distinction highlights the differing implementation approaches and potential initial financial impact for each solution.
Control-M Logo
Rundeck
1 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Rundeck
1 out of 5
Control-M excels in robust workflow management for complex enterprise needs. In comparison, Rundeck offers open-source flexibility, appealing with its adaptability and cost-effectiveness. Tech buyers might choose Control-M for comprehensive automation or Rundeck for agile integration and faster ROI.
Control-M typically incurs higher setup costs, but offers extensive features, whereas Rundeck provides a more budget-friendly alternative with simpler setup processes.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M typically incurs higher setup costs, but offers extensive features, whereas Rundeck provides a more budget-friendly alternative with simpler setup processes.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
CA XCOM Data Transport
1 out of 5
Control-M offers extensive scheduling and workflow automation, appealing to those needing comprehensive integration. In comparison, CA XCOM Data Transport excels in efficient, secure data transfers with cross-platform support, making it ideal for buyers focused on specialized transport functionalities at a lower cost.
Control-M offers a straightforward setup cost, while CA XCOM Data Transport requires a more detailed setup process leading to varied initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M offers a straightforward setup cost, while CA XCOM Data Transport requires a more detailed setup process leading to varied initial expenses.
Control-M Logo
Appian RPA
4.5 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Appian RPA
4.5 out of 5
Control-M is favored for its robust scheduling and job management capabilities, ideal for complex workflows. In comparison, Appian RPA excels in comprehensive automation features, appealing for broader process needs, offering an agile deployment model and cost-effective solutions for extensive automation advantages.
Download Appian RPA vs. Control-M Report
Control-M has a higher setup cost, while Appian RPA offers more economical setup options, highlighting a significant difference for budget-conscious users.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a higher setup cost, while Appian RPA offers more economical setup options, highlighting a significant difference for budget-conscious users.
Control-M Logo
Oracle BPEL
4.0 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Oracle BPEL
4.0 out of 5
Oracle BPEL excels in complex workflow orchestration and extensive enterprise integration. In comparison, Control-M simplifies batch processing and workload execution across diverse environments. Oracle BPEL offers advanced process management, while Control-M ensures quick setup and streamlined deployment for efficient job handling.
Download Control-M vs. Oracle BPEL Report
Oracle BPEL generally offers a budget-friendly initial setup compared to the potentially higher costs associated with Control-M, which often includes more extensive configuration requirements.
View comparison
Pricing
Oracle BPEL generally offers a budget-friendly initial setup compared to the potentially higher costs associated with Control-M, which often includes more extensive configuration requirements.
Control-M Logo
Rocket Zeke
4.0 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Rocket Zeke
4.0 out of 5
Control-M leads with robust scheduling and integration capabilities, ideal for those needing comprehensive automation. In comparison, Rocket Zeke offers agile performance and versatility, appealing to tech buyers seeking adaptability and quicker ROI with its modular architecture and real-time analytics.
Control-M features higher setup costs compared to Rocket Zeke, offering robust integrations and scalability, while Rocket Zeke boasts more affordable initial setup, appealing to cost-conscious users.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M features higher setup costs compared to Rocket Zeke, offering robust integrations and scalability, while Rocket Zeke boasts more affordable initial setup, appealing to cost-conscious users.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
ESP dSeries Workload Automation
1 out of 5
Control-M appeals with strong support, seamless scheduling, and affordable pricing for quick ROI. In comparison, ESP dSeries offers superior automation and comprehensive features, demanding higher investment but justifying long-term returns. Tech buyers may choose Control-M for cost-effectiveness or ESP dSeries for advanced capabilities.
Control-M setup costs are generally higher than ESP dSeries Workload Automation, highlighting a more substantial initial investment for Control-M users. ESP dSeries offers a more economical setup option, appealing to budget-conscious organizations.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M setup costs are generally higher than ESP dSeries Workload Automation, highlighting a more substantial initial investment for Control-M users. ESP dSeries offers a more economical setup option, appealing to budget-conscious organizations.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
TIBCO Managed File Transfer
3.8 out of 5
Control-M excels in integration and automation, appealing to enterprises needing versatile scheduling solutions. In comparison, TIBCO Managed File Transfer stands out for superior file transfer efficiency with robust security, attracting businesses prioritizing speed and secure data handling for file-specific operations.
Download Control-M vs. TIBCO Managed File Transfer Report
Control-M requires a significant setup cost, while TIBCO Managed File Transfer offers a more cost-effective initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M requires a significant setup cost, while TIBCO Managed File Transfer offers a more cost-effective initial setup.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
UiPath Orchestrator
4.1 out of 5
Control-M offers robust cross-platform workflow automation, ideal for industries with complex scheduling needs. In comparison, UiPath Orchestrator excels in user-friendly robotic process automation, appealing to enterprises focused on digital workforce management. Control-M's flexibility meets varied infrastructure goals; UiPath simplifies initial deployment.
Download Control-M vs. UiPath Orchestrator Report
Control-M has a higher up-front setup cost compared to UiPath Orchestrator, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment. While UiPath's cost-efficiency stands out, Control-M may provide more comprehensive enterprise capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a higher up-front setup cost compared to UiPath Orchestrator, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment. While UiPath's cost-efficiency stands out, Control-M may provide more comprehensive enterprise capabilities.
Control-M Logo
Axway Automator
3.0 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Axway Automator
3.0 out of 5
Control-M offers extensive scheduling and integration for complex environments. In comparison, Axway Automator provides ease of use and flexibility for simpler management. Control-M's higher initial investment leads to long-term efficiency, while Axway Automator offers cost-effective rapid deployment and quicker ROI.
Control-M has a higher initial setup cost, making it a potential choice for larger enterprises, whereas Axway Automator offers a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to businesses with limited upfront resources.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a higher initial setup cost, making it a potential choice for larger enterprises, whereas Axway Automator offers a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to businesses with limited upfront resources.
Control-M Logo
Flux
5.0 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Flux
5.0 out of 5
Control-M excels in technical support and seamless integration, appealing to those valuing assistance and cohesive workflows. In comparison, Flux offers robust features like cross-platform scheduling, ideal for businesses seeking adaptability and scalability with lower upfront costs and flexible pricing.
Download Control-M vs. Flux Report
Control-M has a higher setup cost compared to Flux, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a higher setup cost compared to Flux, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.
Control-M Logo
Azure Automation
4.0 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Azure Automation
4.0 out of 5
Control-M excels in job scheduling and workflow orchestration, making it ideal for detailed workload automation. In comparison, Azure Automation integrates seamlessly with Azure services, appealing to cloud-centric organizations with its lower upfront costs and strong cloud alignment.
Download Azure Automation vs. Control-M Report
Control-M has a notably high setup cost, while Azure Automation offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a notably high setup cost, while Azure Automation offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.

Related categories

Process Automation
Workload Automation
Managed File Transfer (MFT)