Control-M Reviews

I have used Control-M for database, SAP, web services, and file transfers. Additionally, I use it for normal scripts.

We had a customer who was using cron jobs to handle their workflows. With cron jobs, they faced problems related to SLA. When something failed, it took them time to identify issues, and sometimes they missed incidents which resulted in P1 situations in production environments. They transitioned to Control-M based on its features related to SLA and workflow visibility, which significantly helped them.

The GUI is the best feature, along with the file transfer capabilities. These are the two main components I use on a daily basis. Through GUI or CCM, we get control of all the components, which I really appreciate. 

While I cannot specify exact business impact numbers, frequent P1 incidents in the production environment typically indicate monetary losses.

While it can be used for DevOps purposes, we haven't used it for that purpose.

Support is one aspect that they really need to improve. Though we receive support for current versions, the challenge arises when working in large organizations with legacy workflows or applications, typically 10 to 20% of the total. 

When these legacy environments have outdated OS and face production issues from a Control-M perspective, BMC support states it's not supported anymore. Recently, we needed documentation for an old component during a production issue, and their response was that they couldn't help as it wasn't supported. Documentation should be maintained for all versions since they provided the application.

I have a total experience of around 19 years, with approximately 13 or 14 years specifically with Control-M. I started with 6.4.

Control-M is pretty stable. There are occasional issues, yet nothing major, and most issues are not caused by the software itself.

In on-premises environments, scalability features are limited. Planning and resource allocation must be done at the start. If workflows increase from 1,000 to 10,000, redeployment of the application becomes necessary. Database and application node planning must account for anticipated workflow volumes from the beginning.

We have approximately 1,000 users.

Support is an area that requires significant improvement.

I haven't migrated from other solutions.

I have limited experience with TWS. The TWS version we used was primarily command-line based, and its GUI capabilities were not comparable to Control-M.

The deployment process is straightforward. The environment's complexity affects deployment time rather than the software itself. Basic DB and Linux box installation takes approximately a week. The planning phase for system connectivity and task execution locations requires additional time.

The system requires maintenance with patches released once or twice yearly.

We are implementing this as a customer.

I can provide a general perspective on ROI. Manual tasks require human effort and are prone to errors, which Control-M helps eliminate. However, I cannot provide specific ROI figures.

Control-M is expensive and not cheap at all.

I have conducted technical assessments for several market solutions, though not in great depth. We explored alternative solutions due to Control-M's high cost rather than its technical limitations. My assumption is that all current enterprise-level scheduling or workload automation software provides similar technical functionalities and features.

We're a customer.

I would recommend Control-M for its performance capabilities. While cost-cutting is prevalent everywhere and Control-M's cost is on the higher side, from a technical perspective, it ranks among the top three solutions. 

The review rating for Control-M is nine out of ten.

My main use case for Control-M is for workflow management, which is critical in my role.

An example of how I use Control-M is to align the jobs effectively to ensure smooth operation. I manage a documentation life cycle, using Control-M to arrange the jobs for the review process, which includes an initial peer review, followed by a technical review, and then publishing.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization by improving control, productivity, and the quality of the product.

The quality has improved by 20% and productivity has improved by about 15%, demonstrating the impact of Control-M.

The best features Control-M offers include its strong workflow management capabilities, which stand out significantly.

Besides workflow management, I find the integration capabilities of Control-M useful, though we have used it least in practice.

Control-M's governance and security features are easy to configure.

Control-M's accuracy and reliability of output are strong points; I find it to be accurate and reliable.

I have not found any issues with Control-M and do not have specific improvements to cite. My experience has been mostly positive, and I am satisfied with its performance.

In the recent past, I have been using Control-M for about six months, which has allowed me to explore its capabilities fully.

Control-M is stable, and I have had a reliable experience using it.

We have not found any issues; Control-M is scaling according to our requirements effectively.

Your customer support has been very good; I have never found any issues.

I would rate the customer support for Control-M a 10; it has met all my needs.

We did not previously use any other solutions, which meant we had to depend on more resources.

While I cannot disclose the numbers, Control-M has saved resources for us.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Control-M is that it is the best in the market.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing Control-M; it was a straightforward decision.

I would rate Control-M a 10 on a scale of one to ten, considering that is the highest possible score.

Control-M deserves a 10 because I find it very intuitive and very easy to use, which enhances my experience.

Control-M is deployed in my organization as a public cloud solution, which fits our infrastructure needs.

We use AWS as our cloud provider to host Control-M, which integrates well with our systems.

For others looking into using Control-M, I would advise that it is very quality-driven and includes the latest features in the industry; I would recommend going for Control-M.

My main use case for Control-M is to run OS scripts, SAP jobs, and database jobs.

A specific example of a job I run with Control-M is executing the SAP program and variant, which is the major job that we run in Control-M, along with file transfer jobs.

Recently, we started using SAP BTP IS jobs, which I would like to add as a main use case, and we are in the process of configuring it in our environment; so far, it is going well.

Currently, it is not yet decided if my organization is using or planning to use Control-M to support AI or ML workloads, and we are mostly working on SAP jobs, scripts, and file transfer jobs.

For compliance requirements such as SOX, the SAP team provides us the job name for which we must share the scheduling, the last change done, and the frequency of running, all of which our team provides to the audit team, and in Control-M, we check how auditors log into the server and what access is granted.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization by allowing us to see different types of jobs in a single GUI, enabling us to create dependencies between the jobs of different teams, which is very helpful.

Creating dependencies between jobs has helped my team by allowing us to run jobs easily, such as those of the finance and sourcing teams, by creating dependencies or soft dependencies using resources to avoid parallel runs of the jobs.

The best features Control-M offers are passing parameters and alert setup.

Passing parameters is useful because we can use a single script and the job will pass different parameters based on the requirement, and alert setup helps us know the status of the jobs, whether they have completed or are running late.

So far, it is going well, and I do not wish to add anything else about the features.

Control-M is quite good and I do not see a need for improvement.

I would request that whenever there is a new feature, BMC schedule training for all Control-M users so they will be up to date with the new features available by the vendor.

I gave it a nine because there are few complexities in scheduling the dependencies due to time zones and the need to create duplicate jobs, which is one of the reasons it's not a perfect ten.

I have been using Control-M for seven plus years.

Control-M is stable.

The scalability part is handled by a separate team; I will only be scheduling and administering the system.

I frequently contact the support team and my experience has been very good.

I would rate customer support a ten.

I was using Control-M from the beginning of my career and did not previously use a different solution.

I am not working on the pricing, setup cost, and licensing part of Control-M because that responsibility lies with a leadership team, and I heard it is quite costly.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing Control-M; the projects I was assigned had Control-M, so I did not have to explore other tools.

I would rate Control-M overall a nine.

Control-M is currently deployed in our organization on-premises, with our development servers in the cloud, but we still use on-premises; we are not using SaaS.

I advise others looking into using Control-M that it is a good product with a lot of scalability in job scheduling, and different types of jobs are available in this platform, so it is a good tool to go with.

What stood out to me about Control-M during the event was the possibility of creating cloud-related and testing-related capabilities that I want in the application layer or anywhere in software development. I am looking forward to tools that can help with this.

A specific scenario where I think Control-M might help my team in the future is when we have written code, calculations, or functions and want to test it in the cloud or after pushing code to get it running. For that pipeline, I want to check if it follows proper standards and works correctly, and if every condition is functioning properly.

From that perspective, I attended the event looking forward to exploring any other possibilities or tools available. That is my current mindset.

The best features Control-M offers, based on what I learned at the event, are features I want to explore further since I recently attended.

Regarding the features, I want to explore monitoring-related capabilities and schedule-related features if they are available in Control-M that could help me.

I think Control-M could impact my organization positively if I were to implement it, but I have not yet made that decision.

If I were to implement a tool like Control-M, I would hope to see faster processes and CI/CD pipelines that get easily approved and checked. Additionally, I would want to automatically deploy my application to the production layer.

Based on what I have seen or learned so far, I do not have any improvements for Control-M in mind at this time.

Regarding Control-M's AI capabilities, my thoughts on its governance and security from what I have learned include security-related aspects such as user data privacy and encryption modes, and other types of security tools I would want from Control-M if possible.

I do not have any additional improvements needed beyond what I have already mentioned. There is nothing else I hope to see if I were to use it more extensively.

Currently, I am not using Control-M. I attended an event to understand Control-M and the BMC program. I wanted to learn what this company does and what their tools offer for knowledge purposes.

Before considering Control-M, I did not evaluate other options, as I did not have that in mind.

I would rate Control-M overall as a seven on a scale of one to ten.

I chose a seven for my initial impression because I need to explore it further.

Regarding Control-M's AI capabilities, I consider the accuracy and reliability of its output.

Control-M is deployed in my organization as a private cloud first, and then we plan to move to another option.

Currently, we are using Google Cloud and AWS Cloud for our private cloud infrastructure.

Advice I would give to others looking into using Control-M is that they should explore it thoroughly, and then they will be able to make informed recommendations.

My main use case for Control-M is to process batch workloads. We have multiple batch scripts which need to be run at a particular scheduled time, and we use Control-M for MFT and certain kinds of services where we need files to transfer to the client location.

For batch workload automation, we have SSIS packages and Microsoft SQL packages which need to be executed through the batch file. For MFT, we have Excel files which need to be transferred from source to destination.

The best features Control-M offers are better visibility through the dashboard and an AI-enabled system where users can ask their workflow details through chatting with AI.

The dashboard definitely helps to get better visibility because checking failures one by one by visiting the job is difficult. We are getting the exact figures through the dashboard.

Control-M has impacted my organization positively by improving the SLA and the overall workflow. Timely, we are receiving triggers for daily notifications due to the SLA improvement, and such type of information is useful.

In areas where we need a notification alert whenever the agent goes down, that is something that can be improved so people and clients can be aware and can take immediate action to remediate agent-related issues.

They can work on the integration part where Azure storage and Azure-related things can be integrated seamlessly with Control-M.

I have been using Control-M for the last two years.

Control-M is a great platform to centralize all the workflows. I would rate this product a 9.

My main use case for Control-M is that we use it for DevOps jobs.

A quick, specific example of a DevOps job I run with Control-M is that we patch servers often, and we have a sophisticated deployment process for different packages in our on-premises servers. We do not just use an out-of-the-box package manager; we have a Control-M process that handles pushing these patches into these controlled environments.

Regarding my main use case or how I use Control-M for these deployments, that is everything I do. We have lots of different Control-M jobs for doing different things, but we mostly use it for patching.

My main business use cases or services supported by Control-M include DevOps and management of devices used for deploying our application at different environments.

Control-M's reliability is its big appeal to me, as it has consistently worked for the organization since long before I got into it. Its simplicity in that way and its user interface are the big appeal, but that is about it.

That reliability and simplicity have helped my team when it works correctly and as desired, as the little task box turns red when it has failed, which is a good indicator for us that it is something we need to look at. It is an easy way to review a large number of jobs through a kind of world view of all the jobs, allowing us to see if anything has failed and letting us know what has failed in a nice user interface, making it very accessible to a lot of teammates. However, it has the drawback that just because a job has not completed successfully does not mean it has returned an error that turns the box red.

I do not have any metrics regarding how Control-M has improved the way my organization functions. It seems to have been picked a long time ago for its nice UI, but I think we made poor use of it. Good use of it is not very intuitive, and the lack of integrated version control makes people afraid to change things to try and improve them. Due to its proprietary nature, we lack environments to test adjustments on, which leads me to believe it has not been particularly helpful.

The best features Control-M offers, in my opinion, include the ability to selectively hold and run different jobs and the nice user interface, although I am not really keen on Control-M myself. It is not version controlled, which I really hate, or at least our implementation of it, but it is lacking in a lot of features. That is why I also use Jenkins.

The UI helps my daily workflow by giving us a quick visual way to establish what kind of progress a specific job is making.

I would appreciate Control-M providing better logging on the output of different jobs because sometimes a job completes and it thinks it succeeded, but it did not. There should be more programmability around error logging and better integration with version control. We are not really using Control-M as well as we could because we are not parameterizing all of our jobs and their steps, which I think can be done better, but that should be a lot easier to do. It is very hard to update these jobs, especially since we do not have something such as a JSON file for it that we can update.

To improve Control-M, there needs to be more programmability around how and when we log errors, and it would be nice to have some tools that actually allow us to interface with Control-M with scripts being run by the task steps. I think it would be beneficial to have some kind of configuration file that we could read, representing each job, giving us the ability to text edit these jobs instead of having to drag these boxes around, which is inconvenient. Additionally, better integration with version control, a web view, and improved resizing for the desktop application would be awesome. I also find that when I search jobs, the search bar does not order them in the order they are actually executed in, just alphabetically, and better searchability for these jobs is needed, especially when you have a large number of them in queue simultaneously.

It is very inconvenient to integrate Control-M with technologies for my data ops and DevOps processes as things change.

I would assess Control-M for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows as not very effective. I use Control-M at least every few days, but it presents a kind of unhelpful user interface. While we have more senior people on my team familiar with all these functionalities, I mostly just run patches when needed, which is not very convenient. Coming from a more Linux-heavy world with depth in Jenkins, I find that these processes are much more convenient and the user interface for actual configuration and programming is much easier. Overall, Control-M comes across as very low-tech and clunky.

Using Control-M has made it pretty much impossible to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines across on-premises and cloud technologies. We almost never make new Control-M jobs because it is so inconvenient, and it is just a very clunky and tough tool to use. I would almost always prefer to do my work with Jenkins or simply write a Python script that logs its progress rather than use Control-M due to the cumbersome process of breaking steps into little boxes without version control.

I have been using Control-M for just a year.

I do not really know how many users are using Control-M in my organization, but my team consists of about ten people using it on and off, depending on our needs at the time.

I do not know how long the deployment of Control-M took, as that predates me by a long time.

I did not participate in the migration to Control-M, and I assume that over time, we will migrate more to Jenkins, as much as we can in the probably distant future.

I would rate Control-M overall a two out of ten.

I rate it that low because it is really very low-tech for what it does, and it has really fallen behind a lot of DevOps tooling. I use Jenkins here and there, which has version control and the convenience of managing credentials, making it easy to add agents and nodes, and it facilitates connections between those nodes more intuitively than what Control-M does. Control-M just makes you SSH into target machines; it essentially runs scripts and lacks built-in configuration compared to a tool such as Jenkins. Even though Control-M seems general-purpose, that just means it is not very well applied to the DevOps work I do, making it a clunky, proprietary piece of software. Its user interfaces are not really that valuable to actual technical people who just want good logging and good integrations for their automation.

Regarding Control-M's AI capabilities, I have not seen any governance and security features.

I have never used Control-M's AI capabilities to assess the accuracy and reliability of output.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Control-M is that it is good to have code in front of you. Many organizations have followed trends onto tools that are very WYSIWYG, and I have used several such as Telerik Reports in the past. If you do not have code in front of you, you do not really know what is going on, and it becomes hard to facilitate integrations and log specific technical and business functionalities. Buying higher-level proprietary tools can lock you out of your own workflow due to the lack of customization and access.

My advice to others looking into using Control-M is to not do that because it is a proprietary product that overlaps a lot with newer open-source technology that is more accessible and paradigmatic for modern software development. Since it is a commercial product, the company likely offers consulting for best practices on how to use it, and getting training for its intended users along with documentation within the organization could help prevent other companies from falling into the same un-paradigmatic usage we have experienced.

Control-M is our primary workload scheduling software, and we aim to utilize it for linking applications, hardware, and data transfers. Ideally, it should be the core component of our architecture. While we have started to expand its use over the past couple of years, we are not fully there yet.

A significant portion of our incoming files is handled through Managed File Transfer (MFT) Enterprise, which is an extension of Control-M. We have been utilizing this solution increasingly for both external and internal file transfers. Additionally, we rely on Control-M to schedule SAP jobs, which is one of its key functionalities. We also schedule a substantial portion of our data warehouse production using Control-M. 

As a health insurance company, we have a main internal application that heavily depends on Control-M. For instance, many incoming files need to be decoded and processed for our internal application, followed by a job that transfers the data into our databases. We have recently begun to use Control-M for the maintenance of various databases, such as SAP HANA, Oracle, and Postgres. This aspect of our usage is constantly growing.

Another significant aspect of our workflow involves creating customized job types for our clients. For example, some files we receive are encoded and zipped, for which there is no default Control-M job. To address this, we frequently use the Application Integrator to provide additional functionalities not currently available in Control-M. This allows us to automate tasks that would otherwise require manual intervention, such as extracting contents from ZIP files.

We are also standardizing processes with Control-M, providing standard job types for all our customers. This includes file renaming, combining files, or separating them based on specific application types. For instance, we receive files that contain multiple text files, which we may need to split or combine into a certain format when sending them out.

In summary, we are dedicated to making Control-M our primary workload automation and orchestration software. Recently, we've begun integrating Control-M with Ansible to manage patch routines for our Linux and Windows servers. The challenge has been linking these patch routines with our application jobs. We've started this integration so that whenever there is a patch, our applications automatically halt until we receive confirmation from Ansible. We frequently use the Control-M API for this purpose, enabling seamless coordination between Ansible and Control-M. Overall, these are the main use cases we are currently implementing with Control-M, and we continually seek to expand its applications across our operations.

The application integrator provides a toolbox that makes integration easy. We use it to mask Python scripts that handle various routines, such as ZIP solutions, while the application integrator manages drop-down menus. Sometimes the integrations that Control-M provides are not suitable for our specific use cases. For instance, with S3 storage from Amazon, Control-M's integration only uses a small percentage of available S3 functionalities, so we had to create our own solution. When using BMC tools such as the application integrator, Control-M provides an easy path to integrate many features.

One thing we have criticized is the MFTE capabilities, particularly regarding high availability. BMC hasn't provided a setup with multiple fallbacks for error situations. We've experienced main problems with MFTE where having one setup means when an error occurs, the entire service goes down. We have requested BMC to provide a high availability solution for MFTE. While there are other minor issues, this remains our main concern.

I started using the z/OS parts in 2007-2008 for one to two years. After switching companies, I have been using it in its current form since 2013, totaling twelve years of experience.

It is usually very stable, except for the MFT solution where an error leads to an outage. This has occurred several times in the last two to three years. We are in direct contact with their lab development regarding these issues. While the system is stable 99% of the time, when issues occur, they are significant.

The scalability is very good with numerous configuration options available. Though we sometimes use load balancers in front of Control-M, the available functions offer good options for configuration. Our license doesn't limit our ability to configure Control-M as needed, allowing us to easily create new agents or environments.

I don’t contact the BMC support every day, but we are in constant communication with them. They are currently migrating many features to their web interface, which means some functionalities that were available on their desktop solution are now missing. As a result, we are creating a lot of tickets regarding this issue. At least once a week, one of my colleagues reaches out to BMC support.

Regarding the quality and speed of their responses, it really depends on the representative and the topic at hand. There are certain areas where they have more experienced experts, while in other cases, the support staff tends to rely on standard procedures. Generally, their answers are acceptable; I would rate them around a seven out of ten. Many times, their assistance is more like a nine or ten, but there are occasions when a representative provides standard responses without understanding the specific issue. In these situations, I often have to clarify the problem multiple times because they start with standard solutions that don’t apply to my case. Overall, I would rate their support around a solid seven out of ten.

Neutral

I previously used OPC (now TWS) from IBM for z/OS software. We regularly evaluate the market, comparing different vendors with BMC, including Redwood, Stone Branch, and HLC. While we conduct proof of concepts and demonstrations from various vendors, we maintain only one product installation.

Control-M was previously used for both z/OS (mainframe) and distributed environments. However, we have since migrated from the mainframe to a distributed system two years ago, and now Control-M is only implemented on the distributed side. I was responsible for this migration due to my knowledge of mainframe systems. While Control-M was already in place, certain functionalities, like data transfer, were not integrated into Control-M. This integration has been accomplished in the last five years.

The learning curve for me was easy due to my background. It took about a year maximum to transition into an administration role. My experience with both mainframe and distributed systems was beneficial. For new colleagues without z/OS background, the learning curve was steeper. While becoming a scheduler is relatively easy in Control-M, mastering specific features requires more time and learning.

In terms of maintenance, we usually have one or two major releases each year, which is quite a significant process. If there’s one area where BMC could improve, it would be optimizing the maintenance process. The type of maintenance required depends on the range of components included. If we talk specifically about the core Control-M product or its basic components, then currently, there isn’t much maintenance involved. However, when we include the agents, the maintenance requirements increase. Overall, I would classify the maintenance needs as moderate. It could be less demanding, particularly during situations like a major version change, where we would prefer to minimize outages. We are in discussions with BMC about how to enhance this process. To summarize, I would say that the maintenance requirements are not low, but they don’t necessitate weekly attention either. So, I would characterize it as being in the middle range.

Control-M is among the highest-priced solutions in the market. When comparing with other vendors, BMC consistently maintains premium pricing. We hope for more creative pricing solutions from BMC in the future, as currently, the price often remains constant regardless of package customization or feature selection. We would appreciate more pricing flexibility from BMC.

Our relationship with BMC is more in the direction of transformative. We’ve built a solid relationship with BMC over the years. It was a process, but I would classify it as transformative. They support us well. While there are certain functions we wish were available, overall, I think our relationship is transformative.

We have a good relationship with BMC, and that required effort on both sides. Sometimes, there’s a gap between what we need as customers and the direction BMC is heading. However, overall, we’re satisfied with how BMC provides us with solutions. Of course, there are things we feel are missing at times, but I also must say that the experience can vary depending on who you’re speaking with at BMC. The experience with sales representatives can differ from discussions with technical staff. In general, though, I would say the relationship is positive.

 I would overall rate Control-M an eight out of ten.

Control-M is an automation tool I use for monitoring, scheduling, job batches, and job flows. It helps me with troubleshooting failures, checking job failures, identifying errors, investigating dependencies, and providing a runbook to recover failed logs, which allows me to practice with realistic IT support.

It reduces time and human errors.

The best features Control-M offers include job monitoring, job scheduling, job dependencies, failure recovery, alerts and notifications, file traversals and integrations, SLA management, automation, and APIs, which are especially valuable for L1 and L2 support.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization by saving time and operational effort, reducing human error, improving product monitoring, connecting business processes, and enhancing business reporting. I can share specific outcomes that include reduced manual effort, such that if a person takes two days to complete a task, Control-M might finish it in half an hour.

I have noticed some improvements needed for Control-M, including proactive failure monitoring, automating repeated recovery, automated recovery, analyzing recurring failures, SLA management, integrating automation, optimizing job performance, and standard runbooks.

I have been using Control-M for one and a half years.

Yes, Control-M is generally a stable and reliable workload automation solution. It provides centralised job monitoring, dependency management, automated scheduling, and failure notifications. With proper configuration, regular maintenance, and monitoring, it helps minimise operational disruptions and maintain business continuity.

I rated Control-M highly for scalability because it can manage growing workloads, increasing job volumes, and complex workflows across multiple applications and cloud environments. It supports business growth through centralised scheduling and automation, with capacity depending on infrastructure, configuration, and licensing.

Control-M provides reliable technical support, comprehensive documentation, and effective troubleshooting resources. Customer support and product guidance help resolve issues and maintain smooth operations.

Yes, I reviewed the previous solution and made changes to improve automation, monitoring, and operational efficiency. The changes were intended to address recurring issues, reduce manual effort, strengthen governance and security, and improve overall performance and reliability.

The initial setup is moderately complex, requiring technical configuration and integration. However, once configured, daily job scheduling and monitoring are relatively straightforward.

The deployment was primarily handled by our internal IT team, with vendor support where required.

Control-M delivers ROI by reducing manual effort, minimising job failures, saving operational costs, and improving team productivity through automation.

I have limited visibility into the exact pricing and licensing costs, as these are typically managed through organisational agreements with the vendor. The value of Control-M comes from its automation capabilities, reduced manual effort, and improved operational efficiency. Transparent pricing, flexible licensing, and clear ROI metrics would further improve the experience.

We previously used manual job monitoring and scheduling processes to track job execution, identify failures, and resolve incidents. We are now leveraging Control-M automation to improve workflow management, reduce manual intervention, and enhance operational efficiency and reliability.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Control-M around nine.

I chose nine as my rating for Control-M because it improves operational efficiency through monitoring, simplifies job monitoring and scheduling, reduces manual efforts, and helps identify failures quickly.

Regarding Control-M's governance and security, I find them to be robust as it supports controlled access, role-based permissions, and auditable and standardized workflows, helping organizations without any concerns noticed as of now.

Regarding Control-M's accuracy and reliability of output, I find it to be high, with automated workflows reducing human errors, which I have personally experienced.

My advice for others looking into using Control-M is to explore its automation capabilities and to follow security concerns.

Our main use case for Control-M at our organization is that we are a mid to large-scale IT consumer and we use Control-M to schedule all batch jobs. We are heavily reliant on our batch operations, whether in mainframe or distributed environments. We run nearly hundreds of thousands of jobs every single day. Control-M has been very helpful and insightful, and controlling batch operations across various environments is straightforward. We are satisfied with Control-M's usage since we migrated from Broadcom ESP over three years ago. Comparatively, Control-M is performing significantly better for us and the outcomes are excellent. We look forward to seeing how BMC is integrating AI into Control-M and how we can see improvements in overall performance, throughput, and efficiency with the new AI capabilities.

Since we run hundreds of thousands of jobs every single day, we are heavily reliant on our batch operations for generating various reports on a day-to-day basis for our business. It is very important that our batch cycle is managed efficiently and the schedule is managed well so we receive our reports on time, which go up to the executive level. Many business decisions are based on these reports. Control-M plays a significant and vital role in managing our batch operations. We look forward to seeing what additional innovations BMC is engaged with regarding Control-M and what we can expect with the new AI capabilities.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization by improving the overall batch performance and scheduling. I can share that specific outcomes show improvement in the efficiency of our batch operations as a whole.

I am fairly new to Control-M, but I know at a high level how Control-M is used in our organization.

At a high level, I have thoughts on features that stand out in Control-M, such as scheduling flexibility, cross-platform support, centralized monitoring, and automation capabilities. The flexibility in scheduling is notable, and since we use it on mainframe and distributed environments, cross-platform support is essential. Obviously, monitoring centrally and the automation capabilities are also important. All four of these are what I hear on a day-to-day basis, and Control-M is doing a great job for us. These at least four areas are what stand out.

I am not a direct user of Control-M, but I manage the Control-M team and I know a little about Control-M, how it works, the purpose, and the outcomes we are getting in our company. I can speak to that.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Control-M overall as nine. I choose nine for my rating because of the overall usage, flexibility, and efficiency in Control-M.

Regarding Control-M's AI capabilities, I think as an organization, we are trying to implement a lot of governance around AI capabilities and the tools around AI. I still need to better understand how BMC is integrating the AI capabilities into Control-M and at what capacity. Based on that, I think our organization will see how we can leverage the AI and the governance.

Regarding Control-M's AI capabilities, the accuracy and reliability of output are fairly good.

Our main use case for Control-M is that we are using Remedy from BMC for incident, problem, and change management. Control-M is helpful for those processes as it is fully automated and we are using it for end-to-end problem and change management, being integrated with our other applications. We are satisfied with what we are currently using Control-M for in these processes.

We have several integrations in place with Control-M. We have integration with PagerDuty so that if a critical incident is happening, the team can receive an alert or page, and also with Prometheus as part of monitoring. We have not seen any challenges with these integrations; they were smooth.

We are still exploring Control-M before integrating AI or ML workloads. Control-M does not have a specific feature to adhere to compliance, so for whatever incidents and change records that are part of SOX, we ensure to follow the proper ITIL process and close incidents on time with proper resolution.

Control-M has impacted our organization positively, as we are satisfied and are getting all the use cases we were looking for. Efficiency is one of the key points that stands out since we started using Control-M. Control-M improved our efficiency, helping the team work faster as it is very fast, with no bottlenecks and no slowness.

The best features Control-M offers include the tool's flexibility, as there are many features that fulfill our requirements. Control-M showcases its flexibility for our use cases, including ITSM, incident, problem, and change management, as we have never seen any slowness or bottlenecks with the application. We are aware of all these features in Control-M, which is why we are using it. I do not see much of a bottleneck with the application, as Control-M is very flexible without any slowdown.

I cannot find anything that needs improvement in Control-M, as for whatever use cases we have, we are getting all of those things from it. I do not see anything that needs improvement for Control-M at this time.

We have been using Control-M for close to three years.

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is very good, as I do not see any issues with it; it is very scalable.

The customer support for Control-M is excellent, and we do not see any issues.

We have been using Control-M for a long time, so I did not use a different solution before it.

As of now, we have not seen anything during deployment or setup that needs improvement.

We have seen a return on investment with Control-M, as time is saved for the employees.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Control-M is satisfactory, as it was decided by the procurement team and I have not seen any challenges.

It is client-driven, and we did not formally evaluate other options before choosing Control-M.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Control-M a 9 to 10. I would rate it a 10 because for all the use cases and purposes we had, we are getting everything without any concerns or issues.

Regarding Control-M's AI capabilities, I am exploring its governance and security. We are still exploring Control-M's AI capabilities, but the expectation is that it should be secure and comply with governance.

My advice to others looking into using Control-M is that it is a centralized tool to manage all IT service management, providing a great experience and complying with audits.