Control-M Reviews

The primary use case of this solution is for when you want certain cases to be executed, like file transfers when it is business to business. The solution is mostly used in the banking and finance domain. We are premium partners with BMC. 

This is a flagship product. The solution offers every feature that a customer could want, whether it's the architecture or the use case. It supports all file transfers. 

The solution used to have a graphical user interface for reporting. That is lacking now and it's unfortunate because customers liked it and it's no longer available. In order to compete with IT service desk management, they need to make the product more lightweight, more of a SaaS-based offering. If that were implemented they'd get back to the top. Currently, authentication and authorization portals are provided only in the case of external uploads but that should change.

I've been using this solution for 13 years. 

The solution is stable and provides good performance. 

This solution is easily scalable.

The initial setup is simple and takes about a day. We provide all the implementation and  maintenance services. The solution is generally for medium to enterprise size companies. 

Licensing costs can be negotiated depending on what the count is or how big the implementation is. I've seen even small banks using the solution and I believe licensing costs are reasonable. 

I think it's important to have knowledge about the infrastructure required, and the right data needs to be provided to the implementation partner. Once that's done, the solution is quite flexible to accommodate all requirements.

I rate the solution nine out of 10. 

We schedule all our batch jobs for business systems through Control-M. Almost all the applications in the organization are scheduling batch jobs with Control-M.

Using BIM, Control-M helped us to improve Service Level Operations performance.

The pressure on our operations and maintenance has been reduced.

It is capable of service orchestration, which is needed by my organization.

It provides us with a unified view, where we can easily define, orchestrate, and monitor all our application workflows and data pipelines. This is very important for scheduling my organization's batch jobs.

The error content of Control-M is clearly displayed.

There are four things that need to be improved about Control-M:

1. Improvement in the slow architecture. Distributed architecture is not currently supported.
2. The report form and display function are weak; they are not very powerful.
3. The Web interface is not yet a complete replacement for the C/S interface.
4. SSO and multi-tenant features are not yet supported.

I have been using it for 10 years.

The solution is very stable.

We upgrade versions according to the plan. Adequate testing is done before upgrading.

Two people are required for day-to-day maintenance.

It provides general scalability.

There are about a dozen people who use the solution: administrators, operators, and observers.

We have opened case requests to their support.

We did not previously use another solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

While there is no specific ROI, there have been fewer failures with our batch scheduling.

There are human costs in addition to the standard pricing and licensing of this solution.

We evaluated other options. The main differences between solutions were their Gartner scores.

Buy and use it.

We developed a localized platform for managing Control-M.

We don't have MFT functionality.

The biggest lessons from using this solution: service orchestration and automation.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10.

We use it for one-to-many and point-to-point security encryption. I started with version 6.2. After that, I used version 6.4, 7, 8, and 9. Currently, I am using version 9.20, which is a software as a service version. I deploy this solution on-premises and cloud.

Our customers find the self-service feature the most valuable. Control-M offers great value to businesses by providing an option to see different flows and control and orchestrate the sequence of the execution.

It is easy to use and integrate with different solutions. It is a good solution that is easy to implement and deliver.

Their support can be improved. I would like them to provide support in Spanish and have more knowledge.

I have been working with this solution for eight years.

It is stable. We haven't found any issues.

It has good scalability. Our clients are medium and big companies. Small companies cannot easily buy this solution because the cost is high.

Their technical support is good. It is easy to consult them, and they provide a lot of information about the reason for the issue. I would rate them an eight out of ten. I would like them to provide support in Spanish and have more knowledge.

It is very easy to set up. The deployment can take one to two months, but it depends on the number of tasks.

Its cost is high for small companies.

I would rate BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a nine out of ten. Our clients are happy with this solution.

The most valuable features are the: 

• GUI console
• Stability
• Workflow

I think it's slightly expensive but at the same time, it's a good product. 

I have been using Control-M for ten years. 

Their technical support is awesome. They're helpful when you're in a complicated situation. 

I would recommend it. Control-M is the complete package to manage a work environment. 

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

Many companies are using Control-M in Mexico, two main companies from the retail sector have been using Control-M for around 15 years for all the administration of their processes. 

It has been helpful in reducing costs and resources.

Its compatibility with the new technologies and platforms, like the Google Cloud or Amazon, is the most valuable. Its console allows us to view the duration and execution of a process. It is also very easy to use and easy to implement.

Some companies have found Control-M a very costly solution, and they think it’s not worth the investment. My recommendation is that they can evaluate some points like Control-M is a leader in EMA Analysis (similar to Gartner Studio), and see the potential of Control-M and the immediate benefits that it can have to the Business. It’s my understanding that BMC will be releasing Control-M Saas, which will have a new commercial schema, more accessible than the On-Premise schema.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. All our clients are big companies.

Their technical support is very good. We need to create tickets, and their response time is good.

Its implementation is pretty fast and easy. The duration depends on the size of the infrastructure. It could be implemented between one to three months.

I would recommend this solution. It has good stability and integration capabilities. It is also easy to use and easy to implement.

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

We have a lot of projects with many companies, mostly in México.

There are two main companies in the retail sector. The clients use this solution for their process orchestration.

The solution has the power to reduce resources, which is good for business. It is constantly updated to remain compatible with new technologies such as Amazon, Azure, and Google Cloud. It's very easy to take advantage of the compatibilities.

• The dependencies between multi-platform processes are very good.
• The capabilities of the solution are great.
• It offers very good reporting.
• The product offers very good integration with other solutions.
• The implementation and adoption are easy.

Some companies have found Control-M a very cost solution, and they thing it’s not worth the investment.

My recommendation is that they can evaluate some points like Control-M is a leader in EMA Analysis (similar to Gartner Studio), and see the potential of Control-M and the immediate benefits that it can have to the Business.

It’s my understanding that BMC will be releasing Control-M Saas, which will have a new commercial schema, more accesible than the On-Premise schema.

I've used the solution within the last 12 years.

The solution is quite stable. It's a reliable product. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, they can do so rather easily.

Typically, our clients are large-scale enterprises.

The technical support on offer is very good. It's from BMC. The customers can
open a ticket and be sure that they will have excellent technical support. We're
satisfied with the level of service provided.

The initial setup isn't too difficult. It's quite straightforward. We haven't had issues with the implementations that We have done with our clients. The implementation is pretty fast. It depends on the size of the infrastructure, however, it could be implemented between one to three months. It happens very fast if you compare it to other solutions.

A certified software consultant will help with the implementation process.

The solution offers good value for money.

We're BMC partners. We have a business relationship with the solution. While we typically handle on-premises deployments, we also deal with the cloud.

I would recommend the solution. My recommendation is based on the stability, the constant evolution, and the capabilities of the integration with other software. The implementation is easy. It's easy to use and easy to implement then it's worth the expenditure.

Overall, I would rate the solution ten out of ten. We've been very happy with it.

We are a reseller. Our clients are from banks, retail, and pharmacy industries. We deploy versions 6, 7, 9, and 10 of this solution.

It is very easy to use. The HA feature is also very good.

Its installation can be better. Currently, we have to install it manually. The file transfer feature can also be improved. It is not very easy to transfer a file from business to business. 

In terms of new features, they can include new technologies. It can have API integration.

I have been using this solution for 11 years.

It is stable. There are no glitches. It has been working well from the start.

Its scalability is good. It is easy to scale. Our clients are medium and big enterprises.

They are perfect. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

The initial setup was easy. The deployment took two weeks.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Control-M a nine out of ten.

I'm a Control-M analyst and we use the product for a data warehouse, for secure bank payments, banking applications, an externally accessed economics database, database housekeeping and various housekeeping tasks. We use it across Windows and Unix in lots of different areas where we need to coordinate the platforms, and also areas where the jobs that are running are critical so that if there's a problem we can know if they're not running correctly.

MFT takes a lot of activity and gives us a central point of control. You can do a lot of these activities without Control-M, using bespoke scripts, but the overhead is huge and simple changes become a nightmare. Control-M gives us a standardized solution.

The product works very well with the modules. For example, if you have  MFT, Managed File Transfer, or the old AFT, you can link that to processing jobs. You can use other modules as well and sort of control them for SAP or various other products. The alerting is very good, so you can send out SMS messages or emails to people if there's a problem overnight and they get an immediate alert. It has many, many features and is also very flexible. If a user came along and said, "I don't want to use it the way you're doing it, I want to do something completely different," that would be possible as there are many different options of ways to use the product.

The structure between the Control-M/Server and Control-M/Agent could possibly be improved. It would also be helpful if the deployment of Control-M/Agent could be simplified. Sometimes you can spend a lot of your day just doing the maintenance work to keep the system running. So that's something that could be improved. I think they could also improve the basic engineering of the server. The product has been around for a long time now, it's 30 years old, so most of the big issues were fixed a long time ago. Any issues now are not serious. The API that they recently introduced is very good and lots of people are using that. It's really about development for the future, which means improving the API. 

I would go back to the API in terms of additional features, in that they should expand the possibilities of the API. Not everything is possible with the API, and you've got utilities in all the controlling systems that are very powerful, but they're not all opened up to the API yet. I think they should really just expand the API to catch up with the rest of the system. 

I've been using this product for about 20 years. 

It's a stable solution, you very rarely get any serious outages. That's something they have improved a lot. Obviously it depends on the way people implement it. If the Control-M Server keeps falling over then that is obviously a problem but it will be an issue with the underlying platform itself, not Control-M. They have improved high availability now as part of Control-M, out of the box (if installed within certain parameters) so stability can be very good. 

The product is scalable. The licensing can be an issue, some people have licenses based on the number of agents. If that's what you have then that can be a barrier to the scalability. I know sites that are running maybe a million jobs per day, even more than that, and they don't report any problems. So yes, it is very good.

I don't often have to refer to the technical support because I know the product very well myself. Where I am located, they send us to Italy for support and Italian support is sometimes not so good. In general, there is a very good knowledge base on the product, and you can usually find your problem inside the BMC system or even on the website. So actually opening a ticket is almost a last resort option. 

We used Cron and Windows Task Scheduler, i.e. the platform supplied solution. They are not the same as using a centralized scheduler but they don't pretend to be.

The initial setup is very straightforward now, that's something they have improved. The installation is much better now and it's fairly simple. Basically you can download setup files and have the basic server installation done within maybe two hours. But if you want to use it correctly, the configuration is what takes you a long time and they should probably improve the documentation that they provide for administrators on that side. They have various programs where you can go and sign up as a new user, it's called the AMIGO program, and they will help you. They team you up with an existing user from another company and you can get advice with any problems you might be having. 

We used in-house expertise.

The product paid for its initial cost within 6 months of purchase and repays its annual license fee within 8 weeks.

Sign up for BMC Software's AMIGO program (help for new installs and migrations) and go for the license where based on number of total tasks.

Yes, we tested $Universe, Tivoli Workload Scheduler and the solution from Tidal Software.

The work is really on the configuration side. Installation is not a problem these days. Push it out as much as possible, to have a dedicated team and to decide that you're going to investigate enterprise completely and figure out where the automation will pay the quickest dividends because the return on investment is very quick on these kinds of products. Once you start to use them and you realize how useful they are, then you really make a big difference to the company and it can save a lot of money for many large organizations. Obviously there will be some situations where it doesn't make sense to use it because you're happy with your setup. But there are numerous elements of the business that would benefit that you might just have to get out to your users and ask how you can help improve the way day-to-day work is dealt with.

I would rate this product a nine out of 10.