Control-M Reviews

I use BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for file transfer management, which is its primary function.

What I like best about BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is that it makes transfers more secure and faster. My experience with it is good.

I also like that it has personal dashboards.

I also found the functionality of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer better, plus it has a recovery feature during failed file transfers.

An area for improvement in BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is integration. It should be compatible with more solutions. BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer should have integrations with newer applications as well.

I have fifteen years of experience with BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer, and I'm still using it.

I didn't see any stability issues from BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has good scalability.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has good technical support, as it has different engineers and consultants who resolve the issues.

My rating for BMC support is nine out of ten.

I chose BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer over the other solution because I know more about it, and it works better in terms of function.

Setting up BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is easy, so it's a ten out of ten.

As BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is a module, you install, implement, and run it in one day. It could take three weeks if you still need to install the solution that BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is on.

You'll get ROI from BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer after using it a few times rather than once because the initial cost is high. With this module, you can reduce mistakes and not lose money, so you'll see ROI within one year or less from BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is relatively inexpensive. It has reasonable pricing. What you pay for is the task or job, and as it's a module, it's complimentary, so you save about twenty percent of the job cost. For example, if the job costs $100, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer will cost $20.

Pricing-wise, the module is an eight out of ten.

I'm a software consultant and implemented BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for different customers.

I've worked with older versions, from 6.4 to the latest version, 20.2, of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer.

Deploying the module requires two engineers and one project manager who'll check the results of the project execution.

My advice to others looking into using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is that it's good to implement if you don't want to experience file transfer problems. The module has a tier that lets you transfer many files between different servers, so BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is essential in file transfer and file management projects. You must make sure that you follow the steps on how to use the module.

Overall, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is a nine out of ten because it's easy to understand and use, plus it has a lot of benefits to customers.

Our primary use case for this solution is the data flow between our locations, between systems, and B2B data flow, which includes the data to the endpoints, the schemes and other lines. We deploy the solution on-premises.

For the IQ operation flow, we have to do a lot of planning with data resources and keeping the resources in front of the system. However, the solution has improved our organization by minimizing software dependency and managing data for our clients and regional schemes.

The file transfer, database, and integration features are the most valuable.

The solution can be improved by upgrading its features to compete with premium software in MFT. Additionally, Math and dollar features, along with product samples and VR functionalities, can be included in the next release.

We have been using the solution for approximately 15 years and are currently using version 20.200.

The solution is scalable. I rate it a nine out of ten.

The customer service and support team are very knowledgeable. I rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is quite easy and depends on the speed of the background. So basically, if you're in the background, it's an eight out of ten.

We have seen a return on investment. The solution has saved us about 30% to 40% on additional investments in resources.

I rate the pricing a seven out of ten because there is room for improvement.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is good, but its current functionalities can be upgraded. I recommend the solution to users considering it.

I am using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for transferring files.

The most valuable features of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer are the ease of use and the ability to watch the files as they transfer called Watch File Transfer. There is a separate monitoring window that is useful.

Before we transfer files we have to make the connection profile first for MFT. If we did not have to do this and send the transfer files directly, that would be useful.

I have been using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for approximately three months.

I rate the stability of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a seven out of ten.

I rate the scalability of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a seven out of ten.

The communication from the support is very helpful.

I rate the support from BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is easy, it took approximately one minute to complete.

I rate the initial setup of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a nine out of ten.

The implementation of the solution was done in-house.

I would recommend others follow the instructions given by the documentation and use it. That way, it is very simple to use.

I rate BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a ten out of ten.

We use Control-M to monitor jobs on the endpoints. We monitor throughout the day to see which jobs fail. It helps resolve issues with the programmers. They know if they want to rerun, force complete, or hold a job. We work hand in hand with the programmers who have the final say on what they want to do with a particular job that requires action. Control-M is deployed across multiple locations, but I can't estimate the number of users.

Control-M is a critical part of our operations. We rely on it to do our jobs daily. It helps us automate things that come from the JCL side where you would normally have to do everything manually. It's a little quicker and more automated on the BMC side, which makes things smoother for the end-users. 

The solution allows you to relay your issues to management, who in turn, can communicate them to our customers and programmers. It maintains a dialogue between all parties. It's had an overall positive impact on our process execution. 

We can set up automated email notifications to the programmers or the whole team for a particular job. It helps save time because we're not consistently looking at the job to see if it has ended or failed.

The Control-M interface makes delivering files in our data pipeline a little easier. The integration is so much more seamless, so the transition is a smoother experience.

I've been using Control-M for four years. 

The stability is fairly good. We haven't had any serious issues. 

The response time could be faster when you need a person to answer your questions. There are situations where availability becomes crucial. 

I wasn't involved in the deployment. Maintenance is handled by our unit team. They do updates and patching almost weekly.

I rate Control-M an eight out of ten. It comes down to preference and what you need. There are multiple platforms out there, but I've only used this software.  I recommend doing some research and seeking out a lot of opinions. Talk to other folks who worked with other solutions to get a grip and a better understanding. 

The major use cases we have are batch processing and MFT. We are heavy users of the MFT plugin.

One of the benefits of Control-M is that it's helping to give business users visibility into and control over their jobs, and freeing up IT personnel to focus on other operations. Here, I'm mainly thinking of MFT. Our MFT end-users did not have access to our prior MFT tools at all, so they couldn't see the jobs. They would just request a job be built and then we would publish job reports so that they could see what was out there. Now, in Control-M, we're able to give them job-control access. We still lock down the building of file transfer jobs, but they now have the ability to see a job and see how it's built. They can run a job and hold a job if they need to.

But even for some of the batch jobs, we've written some orderable services that are allowing them to run jobs on-demand, jobs that they used to have to log in to a server and go through a menu to do. Our business users definitely have much higher capabilities in our product now.

And while we are primarily on virtual servers, we are in the process of standing up some agents in the cloud. We have our first agent in AWS up and we're getting ready to do some testing on it. That's pretty critical. There's a really big push within our organization to move into cloud. A lot of our next-gen apps that are going to be replacing the current ones are being built in the cloud. We have that first agent out there, but I assume there are going to be many more to follow as these new applications are stood up in the public cloud. Today we're on-prem, but I definitely envision us moving the entire Control-M stack to the cloud. Eventually, it will be in the cloud and we'll just have a couple of agents on-prem, versus being on-prem and having just a couple of agents in the cloud.

Control-M has also helped to make it easier to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines across on-premises and cloud technologies. It's due to the ability to orchestrate between workflows that are running in the cloud and workflows that are running on-prem. It gives us the ability to have end-to-end workflows, no matter where they're running.

The automation is one of the most valuable features.

New plugins could be tested better. We've had a lot of problems with the MFT plugin. We've been working through a lot of issues with BMC on it.

The functionality that has existed for long periods is very stable. But the problems with the MFT plugin specifically, and problems we've had with MFT in general, have unfortunately caused the entire stack to be affected enough that our end-users couldn't even log in to the application. 

I wish we would have known better about how MFT impacts the application as a whole, and I wish they would have done more load testing around that. That seems to be where most of our issues have been. The issues have been so bad sometimes that the entire app goes down, not just MFT.

I've been using Control-M for about two and a half years.

The stability of Control-M has Not been great. A big thing we've been trying to work on with BMC is observability. Modern applications should be observable and resilient, but we're finding that sometimes Control-M is not very resilient and many times Control-M is not very observable. We're working with BMC to try and figure out how we can externally monitor this application. 

We are using Dynatrace because of the problems we've had with Control-M. If we stood up Control-M and never had any problems, we probably wouldn't be too worried about being able to observe the processes and the queues and the communication between processes. But because we've had so many problems, it has forced us to dig in. We can't wait for a problem to happen and wait for a week for support to tell us how to fix it. We can't do that in a production environment. We have to know before a problem happens so that we can be proactive and not reactive. That's been a big struggle that we're continuing to work with BMC on.

It's pretty scalable. You can stand up a ton of agents and you can stand up a ton of servers, if you need scheduling servers. Scheduling and agents are definitely very scalable.

There isn't the ability to really scale the EM (Enterprise Manager) a ton, although the GUI can be scaled somewhat. I don't know how much of a need there is to be able to scale the EM. We don't seem to have issues on the EM side, for the most part.

We're definitely having issues with the gateway between the EM and the scheduling server, but BMC is telling us that it's because we're running too many file transfers on the scheduling server. They say that if we stand up more scheduling servers, that should resolve that issue. We'll see if it does, if we still have any issues after we spread the load of MFT, not only over more agents, but also over more schedulers. If we still have issues after that, I think that would mean you're pretty limited in how you can scale your EM. That is the one thing about which I'm not sure how well it scales.

Technical support is very back-and-forth. That's one of my gripes about the support. We open a case, they ask us for logs, we upload logs, and they come back and ask us for something else. 

At times, there isn't a lot of what I would call working together with them. We do now, but that's because we had a ton of support cases piling up and we started escalating with their internal leadership. Now, there are weekly meetings between our leadership and their leadership and our account managers, as well as weekly meetings with the support team and the dev team, to talk through our cases and any updates on them.

It took a lot of pushing from our end to get them to work with us. Otherwise, they just asked for logs and then we were waiting for a couple of days for them to look through all the logs and get back to us. We can't be doing that, especially if the issue is a production problem. We can't just upload logs every time we open a case and wait around for two weeks to get an answer.

Another gripe is that they're very siloed in what they know. Something that I've been asking for for a long time, from BMC, is somebody who can take a look at our environment as a whole, and not just in pieces. Every time we open a case with support, they want to assign it to a specific area. If it's a problem with the agent, then an agent person will look at it. If it's a problem with the EM, then an EM person will look at it. But nobody is looking at the environment as a whole. That's an issue because a lot of our problems, as I've mentioned, with MFT, are impacting the entire environment. It's not just one component. It's the entire environment and how those components relate and how they communicate that have been impacted. Nobody has really looked at the environment as a whole, in support. I think it would benefit BMC to have more experts on the entire application and not have everybody so siloed.

Neutral

The initial setup was a little complex, due to some of the requirements. It requires that you have C shell as it doesn't work with the regular BASH shell. There are some old mainframe requirements that have carried through the product, even though we don't run it on mainframes. For example, the user that you use to run it has to be under seven characters long. We had to modify the account we use because the name was too long.

We're still really trying to get our environment squared away. We started two and a half years ago, but we've got a laundry list of applications that we're migrating out of and we've only completed one of those migrations. We're having to modify our architecture now because of the load that we are running. I'm working with professional services at BMC to review our existing architecture so that they can give us a BMC-supported design recommendation.

One of the competitors we are migrating from is Broadcom/CA. Broadcom bought a couple of products. They own both AutoSys and Automic, and we are migrating out of both of those solutions. AutoSys has been pretty straightforward to migrate into Control-M because the job configuration is pretty simple. However, the Automic workflows are very complex. They utilize certain features that only Automic offers, things that we can't replicate in Control-M. That is causing a lot of issues and has caused us to put that project on hold for the time being, until we can work through some of the problems that are being presented. We've been migrating Broadcom for at least a year now.

Some applications are pretty straightforward. MOVEit is an example of one that's a pretty straightforward conversion. However, another tool we have, Diplomat MFT, has a backup file structure that is not what the conversion tool was expecting. We ended up writing a custom Python script to do that conversion for us. The ease of migration really depends on what application you're migrating out of. It could be very complex or very easy.

The migration process is a very high concern. We selected Control-M due to the ability to migrate everything into it and have everything in one tool. If we can't get our migrations completed, then Control-M will just be another tool on top of all the other ones that we have to support.

We used VPMA for the deployment. Our experience with them went pretty well. They're definitely very knowledgeable about the product

I don't know that they, or really, as I said earlier, even BMC had all the knowledge around how MFT could impact the application as a whole, back when we originally bought this. MFT was very new back then. VPMA did their best and guided us as much as they could, but I just don't think the plugin for MFT, specifically, was very mature yet. There were probably a lot of unknowns there.

We had a pre-sales team from BMC that helped us in the very beginning, before we worked with VPMA. They were nice, but I wouldn't say they were very knowledgeable. They had a very surface-level knowledge of the application. They didn't know anything that was deep. They would have to find out for us and get back to us.

It's not my realm, but I would assume Control-M has not helped us realize any savings on renewal costs after switching from Broadcom. The cost of an agent is significantly higher for Control-M than it is for Automic or AutoSys.

We are paying way more for Control-M than we've paid for any of our other scheduling tools. We have an inside joke that Control-M is sold as the "Bentley" of schedulers, but we feel that we got a "Pontiac" because it's falling apart half of the time.

BMC has two licensing models. One is where you pay by job execution and the other is where you pay by endpoints. I'm sure the specifics vary depending on the customer, but we opted to go with endpoint licensing. I'm not sure if that was the best decision, knowing what we know now.

With endpoint licensing, we pay per server. That means it behooves us to run as many jobs as we can on each of those servers. But we're very much finding that even if we make those servers very large and give them a ton of resources, they're still not able to perform because Control-M doesn't scale very well vertically. If you make the agent bigger, if you double the CPU and RAM, that doesn't necessarily mean you can run twice as many jobs. It's going to choke in other areas. 

We will see if we end up switching our licensing model. I think the endpoint licensing model we chose is quite a bit more expensive than an equivalent model where we would pay per execution. We would definitely have to change a lot about our environment if we were to change our licensing model from endpoint to execution, because today we give all of our end-users the ability to run jobs on-demand. If we were to change our licensing model to be based on executions, we would probably want to restrict that a little. 

The way you license is a very large consideration when moving to Control-M.

We really haven't taken advantage of some of the features that Control-M offers yet. The main thing I'm thinking of is SLA management. We haven't implemented that yet on a lot of our business-critical workflows because we just lifted and shifted everything into Control-M from the old app. As of today, things are pretty much equal until we are able to implement some of those additional features.

There are capabilities that Control-M offers that are good and I can see it being a very good product. BMC, as a company, has some maturing it needs to do in a lot of its processes. They have a very good sales team, but a lot of things after that can use some work.

We definitely haven't bailed on it, but I've heard a little bit, back and forth, from people at BMC that they might not be too upset if they lost us as a customer because we've been having so many problems. We've been on them about helping us get this environment corrected and functioning as we expect it to. But in a year from now, it's possible we could be in a really good place. I'm excited to see where it all goes.

I believe that the API should be upgraded with security control from the DM. There is Currently no security for the app API solution.

I have been using the solution for more than 10 years.

The solution is stable. I can say that in the previous version there was a problem. However, it is a stable solution.

The scalability of this solution is very good.  The current solution is used wide spread in my company, but I don't have any plans to expand.

I rate customer service and support a ten because it is the greatest.

Positive

I used a different solution called Computer Associates. I switched because my client switched to that solution. I never went against the solution or suggested to switch over again, because I like BMC.

The solution is complex, but it is very easy to administrate all the components from this solution.

The administration is currently done by two people. 

It pays for itself. In the last two years, I switched for mainframe to distribute systems. 

I switched to this solution within the last year. I switched from the servers payment package to the job payment package, and it is very expensive. 

I rate BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer nine out of ten.

The solution is mostly used for scheduling batches and file transfers.

The GUI is good if I'm comparing it to other scheduling products. All the add-ons are very useful, including the MFT databases, SAP plugins, and so on.

The cost of the license could be improved. 

I'd like to see MFT included as part of the overall product and not a cost add-on as AFT used to be included and they stopped supporting that and now have come up with MFT and you now have to pay for it separately.

I've been using the solution since 1998. It's been a while. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

I've used the solution in small sites and sites that run hundreds of thousands of jobs a day. It's pretty scalable. We have about 50 users, including developers and platform engineers, using this current iteration. The client is planning to increase the usage and the new licenses will be scaled accordingly.

Technical support has been very good. We are satisfied with the level of support.

Positive

I've worked with different clients and used different solutions. 

In terms of the ease of the initial setup, I'd say it depends on the use case, however, it can be quite complex, especially the on-prem version.

I'd rate the process a four out of five in terms of complexity.

We were able to deploy it within a month.

I am a consultant, so I can handle the initial setup myself.

The solution is a bit expensive. My understanding is that they offer yearly licenses, however, as a consultant, I don't directly deal with pricing. 

While the solution is currently on-premise, we are moving to the Helix Control-M on the cloud.

It's an excellent product. It's the best scheduling system out there, so I would recommend it.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is workload automation in a batch environment, in clients' environments. This tool extends support to a number of applications and can be integrated with plugins like PeopleSoft and Informatica. It's a centralized monitoring system, so from the controlling client, you can monitor the entire batch environment of your client. It can also be used for disaster recovery. 

This solution is deployed both on-prem and on the cloud. We are using the latest version. 

This solution has a vast amount of features and with every new release, there are lots of new features introduced. The application has high availability—we have multiple customers and it's highly available. On an application level, if something goes down with the primary, then the application goes over to the secondary, so it's very, very easy to do disaster recovery. 

From an application integration point of view, it has a lot of APIs, rich APIs. Every month, they are releasing new APIs and new updates, like Java, but more than that. Now they are introducing a couple more APIs, which you can use to integrate your controlling environment with any applications you want. 

The only improvement I would suggest is the license pricing should be a little reduced. Apart from that, I don't see anything else as a major concern with the tool right now. 

I have been using this solution for more than 11 years now. 

This is a stable product. 

This solution is scalable. We have more than 200 clients using Control-M.

I've been working in the production environment for more than 11 years, but we created a high priority ticket for BMC when we first introduced it. They went all the way to resolve it and help us find a solution. Not only that, but they also helped us identify and analyze the root cause. In terms of customer support, BMC is at the top, in my rating. 

I have raised seven tickets and, within 15 minutes, we would get a call from their technical support. They never leave us in the middle of an issue, they go all the way to help us resolve it. Their support is the best. 

The installation is pretty straightforward. Anybody who has just two or three years of experience in this tool can do the installation. Their documentation is really nice. If you have a little experience in these tools and installation, then you can easily install Control-M. The installation took 10-15 minutes, maximum, and you can do it yourself. 

I implemented this solution myself. 

The licensing is a bit more expensive than other tools, so if a client is focused on the cost, that would be something to consider. The licensing should be cheaper. 

I don't have experience in AutoSys, but my team also operates in AutoSys. 

I rate BMC Control-M a nine out of ten, because of the stability and the customer support. The only reason I wouldn't rate it a ten out of ten is because their licensing is a bit expensive. Otherwise, BMC Control-M is the best tool I have ever worked on. 

I would absolutely recommend this solution to new clients. Lots of new clients are converting to this Control-M tool because of the stability and the support model. So I wouldn't only recommend it externally, but, internally, we also recommend it to our clients. If they can compromise on cost a little, then this is the best tool to go with. 

Control-M is used for file transfer and batch job scheduling.

Control-M provides a unified view where we can easily define, orchestrate, and monitor all application workflows and data pipelines. This is important because while running a robust environment, and managing and scheduling on individual servers are quite tedious. It has a centralized mechanism where it can schedule jobs on individual components within the environment. In this way, it helps with the ease of administration and achieving business requirements.

Control-M is used to integrate file transfers within the application workflows. Generally speaking, it has helped the business service delivery. For all applications, it has helped to notice bottlenecks, using its dashboard monitoring and alert mechanism. Therefore, immediate action can be taken in the case of failures. When compared to the traditional module or way of operating and scheduling, where the centralized monitoring alert mechanism is not available, Control-M helps in achieve having the application workflow run smoothly.

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 to identify bottlenecks and take corrective measures.

1. File transfer.
2. It has an easy configuration. 
3. You don't need to create individual scripts for individual file transfer jobs. This reduces the load on the individual servers, when compared to a local task scheduler running on any OS.
4. The frequency at which it runs; it can be scheduled to run every minute. It is quite fast and quickly completes the job.
5. The online dashboard and job status. 
6. It has an alert mechanism for any failures.

These items are more useful when compared to the traditional way of doing or scheduling things.

It is on the web. This provides ease of administration, where we can manage the service from a central location. Also, can check or view all the jobs on a single dashboard, where we can manage and monitor them. 

In these three areas, I would like to see improvements in Control-M:

1. It is not giving us diagnostic logs during job runs. 
2. I would like them to beautify the dashboards, in terms of the number of jobs processed which have failed or are in progress. 
3. Control-M doesn't have any dynamic reporting facilities or features. 

I have been using it for about 1 year

If you implement Control-M, and configure it properly, it is quite stable. In the last year, BMC has been releasing a number of patches or updates to make it more stable. 

Initially, stability was not good. When BMC released quite a number of updates to fix some bugs, it became stable.

For any environment with about 80,000 of the jobs running per day, at least we require 10 people to monitor it and three people to administer it.

It is feasible to scale. We have not found any hiccups.

For an environment with about 80,000 jobs running per day, it requires at least 10 people to monitor it and three people to administer it.

Centralized monitoring and administration can be achieved

BMC support will be good level with more number or expertise available

BMC support is clueless on the new issues that arise. It seems like 90% of them are escalated to the R&D department, where they research and come back with a solution.

The guides or materials available are quite useful when exploring all the features.

No solution was used Previously, most of them use the traditional way of going through scripts.

Initially, the setup was a bit complex when trying to understand what all the features and settings do. However, when we explored it more, then we understood it and became comfortable with it.

Initial deployment took a couple of weeks. But once explored more the more convenient

The implementation is always with Control-M. Look at how to utilize all the features in Control-M, work out how to use them in subsequent reports, or while designing subsequent dataflows.

Work with BMC support for upgrades and for any issues encountered.

Looking at the rate of the usage, I can definitely see there is a gain. It is definitely profitable for any organization.

Control-M will help improve data transfers by approximately 80%. As an example, if you run any file transfer schedule in the local OS schedulers, compared to Control-M file transfer, Control-M will be better than the traditional schedulers. This is because of the number of features Control-M has and the frequency at which it runs. You can also choose the type of transaction data during a file transfer, which can be helpful for scheduling and troubleshooting.

Depends on business requirement

No other options available

I definitely recommend Control-M. It is quite stable, scalable, and the ease of administration is good as well.

Useful to automate batch scheduling. integrate within applications

Can be streamlined in data analytics applicaitons with Control-M.

I would rate Control-M as an eight out of 10.

We're not using it currently. We just did a PoC on it. We developed two or three use cases, and based on that, I had implemented the PoC.

For our use case, we wanted to schedule a job that will get data from the auditor and put it into Mongo. For that, we needed to do some calculations, and there was a whole workflow behind it.

The scheduling and management were really good. Monitoring was also better. It had a good visual presentation. It showed me charts and all such things. It was really good on that side.

It provided a unified view to easily define, orchestrate, and monitor all of our application workflows and data pipelines. We didn't have to go inside the box to find out what was happening behind the scenes. All that was easily showing up on the UI, which was a good part of it.

We used it for data transfer within our application workflows. It was very fast and secured.

Its cost should be improved. It is more expensive than other solutions.

Its architecture is old. AutoSys gives more flexibility.

I just started learning it. I saw the demo and started playing around with it.

It has old architecture, so it is sustainable.

Its scalability is fast.

I didn't use their technical support. 

Currently, we have a manual process. We don't have an automated process.

Its setup was straightforward. It was easy for us to host it up because it is a service, and we just hosted it up in the cloud, and it was there.

Its deployment was very fast. It took less than a day. I had to run some commands. I went through the documentation on BMC's website, and it was good.

Its cost is a little bit higher than other solutions such as AutoSys or DAC. For the demo, there were some plans, such as a start plan, scale plan, etc. Pricing was based on the plan.

We are also evaluating AutoSys and DAC. We have used Control-M only for PoC. We haven't decided whether we are going ahead with it or not. Its pricing is high, and its architecture is old. For our use cases, the architecture was a little bit older as compared to others. AutoSys gives more flexibility. 

Control-M's streamlining of our data and analytics projects didn't affect the rate at which we received actionable insights. The rate was okay, and I didn't see a drastic data speed change, but it was reliable.

I used its centralized connection profiles feature that enables you to store all connection profiles in a central database, but it was not really important for me. We already had a custom profile or custom configuration in our services for handling the connection. We were already doing that on our end. If we were not doing that on our end, the use of centralized connection profiles would be helpful for lowering the total cost of ownership.

I would rate Control-M a six out of 10. We only used it for PoC. We have not decided anything yet.