Control-M Reviews

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. 

We primarily use the solution for automation, orchestrating and automating the workloads, and being able to schedule tasks. Prior to Control-M, we were manually running jobs or there was either a scheduled task on Windows, getting Task Scheduler, or we'd have a script laid out that someone would have to run through manually on a daily basis. 

We learned about Control-M and felt that it could take over that process and have it automated, while also providing some monitoring and notifications so that if something did fail, we could easily be notified and keep track of it.

It provides a holistic view of jobs that are scheduled to run. We haven't done full production on it yet. Hopefully, we'll be in production by July or August this year. That said, so far from what we can see, it's going to free up some time for certain staff that has been running these tasks manually overnight. Now, if someone gets notified of an issue, then they can address the issue. In the long run, it'll free up some time and resources to focus on other tasks. 

I like the interface, including how I can see everything and how I can put the jobs together. Depending on the experience, I can either use the GUI or I can use the command line to create jobs based on JSON scripts. It provides that flexibility for someone who has no experience of using Control-M as well as with someone who's a full-blown developer that can get very complex with creating these jobs. Generally, it provides a good interface for everyone with different levels of experience.

Control-M doesn't really process data as far as I can tell. It orchestrates other scripts. From what I understand, Control-M doesn't really ingest or analyze any data. It's a tool to help with the processing of data on different platforms. I can tell it to run a script on one server, to send the data over to another SQL server, or a different platform, Power BI for example, and run a script on Power BI so that it can ingest the data when it gets there and do what it needs to do. Once that's finished, I can send it to another platform to put a dashboard together based on when that data is available.

Once one understands the process of how it functions, it's pretty simple and straightforward to create, integrate, and automate the pipelines. There is a learning curve to understand how it all works, all the components, and all the requirements for parameters and different options. However, it's pretty simple once someone has a basic understanding of how it all works.

The Control-M interface is good for creating, monitoring, and ensuring the delivery of files as part of our data pipeline. There's a wealth of information in both the full client, as well as the web interface that they have. Both are very easy to use and provide all the necessary material to understand how to do various tasks. The help feature is very useful and informative and everything is very easy to understand.

It’s great that Control-M orchestrates all our workflows, including file transfers, applications, data sources, data pipelines, and infrastructure with plugins. There are a lot of plugins and we haven't used all of them yet. Primarily, we've only used the file transfer plugin, the Azure file service, and Azure functions. Primarily, the developers have used that to put the various tasks and workloads in place. While we haven't fully utilized everything in Control-M yet, we're learning how to use the various functionalities and transitioning from our legacy scripts and data sources. 

Some of the documentation could use some improvement, however, it gets you from point A to point B pretty quickly to get the solution in place.

I've been using the solution for almost a year. 

It seems stable. I haven't rolled the solution out to a very large environment yet. The solution we're working on right now seems to be working fine. All the issues we've seen have to do with us figuring out connectivity between Control-M and the cloud services, however, I haven't had any experiences with issues around stability with Control-M.

Right now, it's a small deployment and we have it in four environments. We have it in our dev, QA, UAT, and production environments. Right now, there are two application teams that are using Control-M, however, we have another two or three teams that are looking to get onboarded.

It's pretty scalable. I haven't done a deep dive look into it the scalability, and we haven't identified a need yet to scale out. It seems pretty scalable, yet I'm not sure as I can't speak from personal experience. I don't have experience with it yet.

It was a challenge to get the direction on how Control-M should be implemented. As we learned about new requirements from the customer, implementing those with help from the engineers at BMC was hard. The third-party contractors were one issue, however, when I escalated it to our customer representative, he was able to get me in touch with a dedicated BMC engineer and she was able to give me the information I needed and provided the context and direction on the best approaches. I wasn't able to use the third-party engineer that was assigned to us, however, the internal resource was a great partnership to help move this along.

Neutral

We were using Microsoft and internal tools. We used the basic Windows tools that were built in.

We went with this product to centralize the deployment and to centralize the management of all of the workloads.

Some of the installation components were really complex. I'm more on the infrastructure-based side of Control-M, I deploy it and then get it ready for functional use so that the application developers, script developers, and workload developers could easily access it. It took me three weeks to figure out the requirements for getting the SSL certificates as the documentation wasn't really clear on what those requirements were. Once we figured it out, it was simple, however, the support staff couldn't give me the right information to understand what was required.

It seemed like there was a gap in expectations on what was required for certificates. In terms of the installation overall, it wasn't clear what each variable or what each configuration point was referring to until we were well versed with how everything functioned. Then we were able to say, "Oh, this is what that field meant and this is what was required here." However, during the installation process, there was very limited information on what was being asked at each configuration point.

In terms of strategy, there was a challenge with the customer. I was the third or fourth resource that was brought onto the project. The first three people that handled it, internally and externally, had trouble figuring out what the expectations were. I was handed the baton at the last moment. I had to tie up loose ends and try to get this up and running for the CIO before he started to send up red flags to BMC.

We had an integrator, however, setting up the timing with the integrator was a challenge. What I got from my company and the general expectations weren't clear. When I did get clarification, I wasn't able to get ahold of the contractor since he required a week or two weeks lead time. We then ran behind based on the lack of information I got. Setting up time and requirements was a challenge.

I'm also a contractor working for a customer. Being a third party, trying to work with another third party with minimal information from the client, was just a challenge all around.

There was another team handling the pricing. I'm not sure of the exact costs. 

Our customer chose this solution. 

We do not use the Control-M Python client and cloud data service integrations with AWS and GCP and we do not use Control-M to deliver analytics for complex data pipelines yet.

We haven't gone into production yet, so we haven't rolled this out to all our customers. We're still testing the features and we'll be starting the UAT in two to three weeks.

Right now, we're still in the early stages of rolling everything out. We've gone through the testing in our development environment and in QA to make sure things are good. Now, we're testing performance in UAT internally, and then we'll have customer validation within a few weeks before we go into production.

The solution will play a very critical role in day-to-day operations. However, it'll be at least two months before it becomes critical. Right now, it's still being implemented and evaluated.

It is pretty flexible on various cloud solutions, working with different cloud technologies and platforms. I would say potential users should take a look at it. It does provide a lot of flexibility, especially with the application and integration component that they have. The developers seem to really be able to get what they need out of the AI or the application into an integrated product or feature set.

Before installing Control-M, have a sit down with the Control-M solutions engineer and make sure you share with them all of the details of what you'd like to accomplish before deploying the solution. My client just said, "We want this" and they didn't give us the details about what they were looking for. We ended up having to redesign a few features, as those items were not clarified as part of the installation. When I was brought on board, the customer didn't mention they wanted HA, so that came later. At that point, we had to reinstall and add more servers.

The person who signed the contract was focused on MFTE, which is the enterprise file transfer tool or managed file transfer tool. However, later, the architecture team decided not to use that and go with another tool. Due to that decision, the client could have gone with a SaaS solution instead of the on-premises solution to Control-M and saved a lot of time, money, and hassle on deploying the on-premises infrastructure. So my advice to others is to make sure that the needs and the functional usage of the tool are identified clearly before purchasing or implementing the tool.

I'd rate this tool ten out of ten. It does what it says it does. 

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 primarily use Control-M for financial services. We do file transfers, payroll, HR, and other related tasks.

The top three processes that we have automated with Control-M are payroll, HR reports, and time reports. This automation gives HR, and the business in general, a clearer picture of what is happening as far as the payroll timesheets go, including who's punching in and punching out. Essentially, it improves transparency.

Control-M provides us with a unified view where we can define and monitor applications, and this is very important to us, especially in the audit process. We have auditors and they request certain information; using Control-M, we can log in and create the report according to the parameters they're asking for. It makes life much easier.

Our developers use the web-based interface to monitor their jobs. They do not have access to do anything else but they can tell if their jobs have run, or not.

Our developers leverage the “as-code” interfaces and it makes it very easy to roll out new applications and application updates. Everything is automated as far as transferring files in and out to certain people. This is helpful because it doesn't have to be done manually. It also generates reports automatically for us. Control-M jobs produce the reports so we don't have to create them every day.

We just started using Control-M to streamline our data and analytics projects. So far, it has given us some actionable insights. The streamlining has improved our business service delivery because we can tell if something is running behind, and why. We know if there's an issue before anybody notices.

Control-M has improved our data transfers because it is much easier to do encryption back and forth when sending files.

This product has helped us to achieve faster issue resolution. I estimate that issues are now normally resolved within 10 minutes. It's very quick.

Control-M has helped us to improve service-level operations performance. We have a critical job stream and because we're an institution, we have to have certain data out at a certain time for the federal reserve. If we can detect when something is running behind, and why, then we can notify them ahead of time so that they know the reports are going to be late. It helps them on their end, too. This way, they don't have to call and ask us where their report is.

The most valuable feature is the reporting function. It allows us to pull up reports for specific information that the end-users are looking for.

The planning and monitoring features in Control-M 20 help us because we can forecast to assist with network maintenance. For example, if we have something major going on with the network and there is going to be downtime, we can do a forecast to see what's going to be running at that particular time and adjust things accordingly.

I would like to see more audit report templates added, and perhaps more customizability in terms of reporting.

I have been using Control-M for 15 years.

Control-M is very stable and we've had no major issues with it.

Scalability is not a problem. It absolutely extends with our needs and the jobs that it needs to run in. At this time, it is running payroll reports and other payroll jobs. We are looking at expanding this to other applications in the future, although there is nothing definite yet.

Technical support is very responsive and we have never had any issues with them. Generally, if we have a problem or question, we can open a ticket with BMC and we usually get a response back within an hour, or no later than two hours.

I would rate their support a ten out of ten.

We work with BMC for upgrades and support. We are part of the AMIGO program.

We have absolutely seen a return on investment with Control-M. It is centralized and it's made everything easier for the business end, in particular for getting their reports on time. 

The pricing of Control-M is reasonable. 

The developers in our organization are responsible for creating the scripts. There are 20 of them and they monitor their jobs. With respect to operations including creating, running, modifying, and killing the jobs, there is a group of six staff in charge of that. This group also creates the schedule and the calendars, so essentially, they take care of the day-to-day administration.

My advice for anybody who is considering Control-M is that if they have questions then BMC is great to talk to, but there is also a BMC community and if they have questions or want to know how it's running or working for other organizations, they can post and generally get a response back. There are user groups specifically within Control-M.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I am a project manager and am responsible for the Control-M infrastructure.

Control-M is the only batch infrastructure that we have, so we run all of our batch activity on the platform. We are using the web interface, for example, the workload change manager and application integration. There is not a particular sector but rather, we run all of our batch jobs on this tool.

Control-M provides us with a unified view of our workflows, which is important to us because our processes are standardized. We have set up a company that is used mainly for scheduling, which is also involved in creating flows and monitoring them. As such, standardization from the point of view of the user is important. Effective standardization facilitates our work. 

We have automated many processes with ServiceNow, including some that are critical. For example, if we need to stop 100 instances, we can open a ticket in ServiceNow and it automatically creates the job flow in Control-M that sends the command to stop the instances.

The integration with our incident management platform has meant that we have been able to achieve faster issue resolution. The reason is that we have eliminated the manual phase of opening an incident. It was very time-consuming and it is not easy to calculate how much time we have saved, but I estimate that our process is 70% faster.

Control-M has helped us to improve the performance of our service-level operations by approximately 60%.

The integration with ServiceNow is good. When a job ends and there are problems with it, we automatically open an incident in this platform, and the number of the incident is forwarded to Control-M. This means that we have a record of it with the log of the job. This is a feature that reduces manual work. It is not officially included in Control-M; rather, it was developed for us by BMC.

The web interface supports us well because we have done some customization for each area of our company, and the client can see all of the jobs that they are interested in seeing. One can watch their flow on a phone or tablet. For example, we have integration with WeLink and our clients can see the flow of the billing workflow.

We use Control-M as part of our DevOps automation, and for our company, this is very important because it reduces the amount of work that has to be done. We are a very big company and we have millions of jobs scheduled. The more that we can automate, the better it is for us.

Integration with some applications and platforms is complex and requires development. We have done some integration with the application integrator, but it was more like a manual solution. This is an area that can be improved. 

I began working with Control-M approximately 20 years ago.

In past versions, there were issues with stability and it was a negative experience for us. However, in the version we have now, stability has improved. At this point, the product is good and stable.

Scalability-wise, there are no limitations. We have between 500 and 600 users including our DevOps team, applications teams, and others. For example, some people work on solving problems, others handle scheduling, and some only use it for viewing or monitoring the workflows.

We have a strong collaboration with BMC and we are constantly in contact with them.

The support is good and we are satisfied with it. In general, the responses are fast and the solutions that they provide are good.

In the past, we migrated from IBM's Tivoli Workload Scheduler (TWS). We did not use the Control-M migration tool at the time because it had not yet been developed. We completed the migration manually.

The reason that we switched to Control-M is that we stopped using the mainframe.

There was no particular problem for us in regards to the implementation process, as we had BMC to assist us. We have a very large environment and our migration took between twelve and eighteen months. We have thousands of agents and many Control-M environments.

We did not follow a particular implementation strategy.

For implementing and setting up Control-M, we collaborate strongly with the BMC team.

We have approximately 20 people of varied roles in charge of the day-to-day administration.

My impression is that we have seen a return on investment from using Control-M. As it is our only solution for batch processing, it helps us to centralize all of the batches that we have. This, along with the standardization of workflows, are the most valuable features of this product.

The licensing is managed by the commercial section of our organization.

We evaluated several options and we found that Control-M was the most complete solution.

We use Control-M to integrate file transfers within our workflows, although we don't use the managed file transfer capability that comes with it. We are currently analyzing it and we are deciding whether to use it or not. At this time, we use other programs for our file transfers. Our analysis will show whether we can migrate the process to this new feature.

Overall, Control-M is a good product. We do have small requests that we give to BMC, although they are very specific. The product covers a good percentage of our needs, as-is.

This is a product that we will continue to use and I can recommend it to others. I expect that in the near future, we will migrate to the most recent version, 9.20, and that we will use some of the newer features that it offers. That said, there is always something that can be done to make a product better.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I work for the second largest chain of supermarkets in the UK. We are running about 90% of our jobs through Control-M. This applies for jobs and scripts on-premises and in the cloud.

When we used Control-M version 7, we were just doing scheduling. When we moved to Control-M version 9 six months ago, we started using the cloud plugins, like AWS.

Control-M is business-critical for our operations. It does all our monitoring and tracking.

Our command center people watch the Control-M job status and alerts. Since the pandemic started, and we are working from home, we have been providing them with Self Service. We started this two or three months back. Now, they can watch the jobs and alerts through their mobile and iPads instead of logging into their laptops.

We set up a file transfer mechanism because this will be easier for Control-M to track end-to-end.

We use Control-M as part of our DevOps automation toolchains. We have a four-person team for Control-M. We help the DevOps team create new jobs. We assign a dedicated resource to understand their requirements and how they can be integrated with other jobs. Because Control-M works end-to-end, it is critical for our DevOps daily jobs.

We use Control-M to streamline our data and analytics projects. Control-M has helped improve our data transfers. If there are no security concerns, the data can directly link to downstream systems. We use Control-M to watch all the transfers of files to their targets.

All our Control-M alerts go to our internal automation.

It has two-way integration. We now have a ServiceNow integration. 

Control-M reporting isn't that good. It is very limited. We would like the ability to create our own reports as well as the ability to publish dashboards in the cloud, which would help us. Improved reporting will help us determine statuses and get the answers that we need. However, I personally think BMC is not focusing on the reporting. I have even visited the BMC office in India, and asked, "Why haven't you improved the reporting?"

There are some latency issues with jobs between on-premises and the cloud. BMC is helping a lot to check the imports and exports from version 7 to version 9, including the EM server and the mainframe.

Control-M could improve agentless connectivity a little more. We are using it almost 100% with agents, but when we start using agentless, Sainsbury's Bank has different security mechanisms and we cannot install Control-M. For example, the agentless connection fluctuates a lot, which triggers alerts.

I have worked with Control-M for almost 10 years, since 2010.

The stability is very good. 

The scalability of the latest version is a drastic improvement compared to version 7.

We are getting good help from them. When I use Support Central, I can also see tickets that have been created by my colleagues.

We currently have IBM TWS as a job scheduler, but they don't automate their ticketing. Whereas, Control-M has automatic ticketing. 

We are using TWS for mainframe data. We are looking to start moving all our TWS jobs to Control-M now that Control-M is in the cloud. We are looking at moving these jobs around September or October, then we will have 200,000 jobs daily in Control-M.

We are trying to import from Control-M version 7 to Control-M version 9, but have experienced a major problem with its new features (database-related stuff). We are slowly fixing this as we go, with the help of BMC. Right now, we are doing this process step-by-step, but we can't upgrade everything to the latest version. We can only move everything to Control-M version 9.5.

Initially, we were first-timers doing the cloud. We had so many trials and errors. For importing, we created virtual machines in AWS and set up a lot of automation. However, we needed a static IP address for Control-M. So, we had to start from scratch to create new virtual machines with static IP addresses.

We are currently importing step-by-step. We still have two mainframe servers that we need to do and should be done by the end of August.

We have 70,000 jobs running daily. Control-M has reduced the number of jobs that we are running daily. We used to have more than 500,000 jobs running daily. This is very important to us.

Control-M has helped us resolve issues 70% to 80% faster. It provides us with alerts instead of having someone go to that particular server and check the logs to determine where the issue is. We can simply click on the alert information, then everything is in front of us. This provides us with time savings, human effort savings, and process savings.

You can't compare other tools to Control-M, because Control-M is further ahead of any other tool.

Once a year, as part of our disaster recovery, we restart Control-M and see what happens. Next, we will run those jobs through Control-M. Then, we will show management, "This is what happens if you use Control-M and if you don't use Control-M."

There are some areas of our business where we don't have Control-M. When we start doing those areas through Control-M, it will be an end-to-end solution.

We don't use Control-M for file transfers. We have proposed using Control-M for file transfer with version 9, which is in the cloud.

In the future, we will give control to the DevOps team through BMC AMI Change Manager. They will create the jobs, then send them to our BMC Control-M team for review, testing, and promotion to production. However, adopting this will take some time.

I would rate Control-M as a nine out of 10.