Control-M Reviews

My main business use case supported by Control-M is performance data generation, which includes all orchestration jobs and workflow processes.

The feature I appreciate most about Control-M is the capability of scheduling jobs automatically, as the dependency and control runs all tasks automatically by themselves.

I value this feature because it frees up a significant amount of time from my daily work, allowing me to concentrate on other more manual tasks.

Control-M supports my DataOps and DevOps initiatives by automating the entire process through the dependency and successor logic.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Control-M is that it helps me automate the manual tasks of my daily work.

My company has achieved measurable benefits with Control-M through automation, which has improved delivery and reduced the possible manual errors that a human can make.

I think Control-M can be improved because we recently moved to Helix, the cloud control, and the latency of the application is substantial; the job is running in the background, but the UI side is very slow on the front end.

Control-M integrates with new or changing technologies within my DataOps or DevOps stack well; the cloud improvement is positive, but now that AI is a significant topic, it could incorporate more AI features. Although they do have some AI functionality in the cloud applications, it is not particularly useful and intuitive.

If I were to estimate the improvement percentage, I would say around seventy percent.

I have been using Control-M for six years.

After moving to the cloud solution, I believe Control-M is much more stable; we have been using it for around two years, and I do not see any downtime. On the cloud solution, I do not observe any downtime; however, on-premises, sometimes the server is not up and the agent is not running.

In terms of scalability, I believe Control-M works well for the work I am performing, around eight or ten because we are heavily using it for morning tasks, data preparation, and preparations early in the morning for the day.

BMC customer service and technical support typically assist us; we usually speak to the relationship manager to raise any concerns or issues that we find, and so far, we still receive the answers we need, although the response may not be as immediate as we expect.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a seven out of ten.

My company considered switching to other solutions once and attempted to source alternatives, but we ultimately decided to stick with BMC.

The overall experience with the deployment process of Control-M depends on whether we are discussing the application itself or the creation of the job.

I would describe Control-M's performance in building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring workflows as quite good; I have previously used other orchestration tools, and I believe Control-M has much better visualization of workflows in terms of scheduling jobs.

I use Control-M to orchestrate workloads across multiple environments; we have a stream of workflows that connects to AWS, then SQL Server, and our in-house applications and so on, creating a large web of workflows across different kinds of applications.

Control-M handles complex data pipelines and analytics processes mostly through the designer that designs the workflow; we put the complex logic there, and it serves more as a tooling for us to use than Control-M handling all of this.

The creation and automation of data pipelines across on-premises and cloud technologies with Control-M is quite good; so far, I have no complaints with that. Between the on-premises and cloud, we have one less concern about how the application processes on the cloud, but on-premises, we have more freedom in accessing the database and some backend functionality.

My advice for someone or other companies considering Control-M is to check their business requirements and see what Control-M can actually offer because they do have many plugins for different kinds of usage, so it totally depends on what the company wants.

I would rate this review eight out of ten overall.

In our project, we are using Control-M for job scheduling and monitoring. We have data workflows and many other components that we can manage from a business point of view. We can manage processes across on-premises and all kinds of environments.

Control-M is the easiest tool available because we can accomplish what we want. We can automate processes and reduce manpower, which is the primary benefit. We can manage all workflows across different cloud environments with the help of batch scheduling, automating, and controlling jobs. It is easy to handle if you are confident with scheduling and related components. We can improve Service Level Agreements and SLA management.

Integrations are available through API and Control-M automation API to build, run, and manage workflows. We can integrate with CI/CD pipelines. As an automation solution, Control-M provides cost and licensing benefits that are good for our ownership considerations. Flexibility is also available. Job failure monitoring includes email notifications and alerts. Some users feel that the interfaces, both web and desktop, could be more streamlined.

IBM workload automation is another tool, but we are satisfied while using Control-M and comparing it to other solutions. IBM is primarily suited for mainframe integrations only, whereas Control-M is a workload automation platform where we can implement job as code and use it easily.

Deployment and agent upgrades are straightforward with Control-M. If you want to upgrade one agent version or the client version, Control-M is easier to manage compared to other tools. If we have Java capabilities, we can easily perform these upgrades. Moving to Oracle 19c would be beneficial. TLS protocols are in place while fixing vulnerabilities. TLS 1.2 and higher versions are good, and we could upgrade to TLS 1.3 for better security.

From a security perspective, communication protocols like TLS are available. SAP optimization would be beneficial if possible. Improving the overall application path would enhance the solution further.

We have been using Control-M for four years.

We experience all kinds of stability issues, and they are difficult to manage.

Compared to all other tools, the scalability is moderate only.

We are receiving all the good support we need. Even when we encounter issues with vulnerabilities that we cannot fix internally, the vendor provides excellent response times and support. Everything has been positive.

Positive

We have used other vendors in the past, including solutions from Azure, AWS, and Salesforce.

We have achieved nearly 30% return on investment.

Nearly 100 users are using Control-M in our organization. We previously used BMC Eclipse, which is a Software as a Service solution, for three years. Control-M has enabled us to transition from mainframe to the cloud environment with Azure. We are using this on a video conference basis. My overall rating for Control-M is 8 out of 10.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is extensively used by our clients mainly in the BFSI sector, where we see around 5,000 to 10,000 file transfers for a few critical customers. We use it for data from their vendors who provide inputs for their end clients, including insurance agents who provide data in these files, facilitating both B2B and B2C processes.

Regarding the usability of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer, I have been using it since 2009, and I have encountered no issues. I appreciate that no code is required, it is centrally managed through account management, validations are in place, and file transfers are tracked in an audit through which account they occur. It is one of my favorite solutions, existing since 1980, and I have written a lot of papers on Control-M, including one on my LinkedIn called 'A Leader's Journey' before BMC published the journey of Control-M.

My impressions of application workflow orchestration with BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer are that it is a fantastic tool I have been using for 16 years. I have even received appreciation from the development team in Israel, stating that no one has used the solution to the extent that my team and I have for one of our customers. The orchestration process allows easy accessibility to different applications, and it facilitates configuring with drag-and-drop functionality to set dependencies.

If you can share an email, I can provide pointers on potential improvements for BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer, focusing on customer-centric enhancements. For example, providing checksums for file metadata in reports could significantly help with file transfers.

I have been working with BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for more than three to four years.

Regarding stability, there were some issues reported during implementation and usage by our customers, but I would rate it an eight out of ten.

The scalability of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is impressive due to its ability to handle large quantities of data and files, but there are certain features that could be added to make it a game changer.

From a support perspective, BMC technical support needs improvements. There are novice users needing help, but for customers such as us, who have been using the solution for over a decade, the response needs to be more timely and efficient, utilizing L2 and L3 support effectively.

Neutral

The initial setup process for BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is very simple for us, as it requires a component to be deployed in the DMZ, from where the file gets transferred centrally to the server.

We are the premium partners for BMC products implementations, recognized as Bihom partner of the year multiple times. I have deployed BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer since 2011 for our customers, and it has been working flawlessly, with people speaking highly about the solution as the heart of their organization.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has indeed helped our clients reduce IT operation costs. For instance, I implemented it for one of the largest banks in 2012, which reduced their loan process sanction from four days to just two hours, and now it completes in 30 minutes. Additionally, the timeline for the policy dispatch to insurance end clients, which initially took up to ten days, now happens in two hours.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has some competitors in the market, but according to the Forrester and Gartner reports, nobody is even close to this solution, and I prefer not to use open source options.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is my favorite product, so while I would typically rate it around 9.7 or 9.8, I would ultimately assign it a rating of 10.

My use case for Control-M is orchestration.

The best features of Control-M are that it is easy to use; even a non-technical person can learn it in a couple of days with normal documentation and a few videos. Just two days should be sufficient to pick it up. Users do not need to be technical to use the tool, and it is easy to implement and deploy.

Integrating Control-M with other technologies for DataOps and DevOps is easy; we export the jobs we create in a non-prod environment and, on the runtime, we know what variables need to be replaced, and we replace those variables to deploy to prod since Control-M is just an XML file, which is very easy to search and replace.

Control-M is extensively used in our projects. When we start a project and it becomes an enterprise tool, we are required to use it. If there are any failures, we can tag them with an incident, making it easy for maintenance, monitoring, tracking, and deployment since everything is in one place.

The area that has room for improvement in Control-M is a better dashboard. For example, sometimes we have up to 100 Control-M jobs, and there is no dashboard to know how many jobs are in progress, completed, or waiting for files. That requires us to create an additional dashboard on top of the Control-M metadata.

I've been using Control-M since I started my career in data warehousing in 2011 or 2012 since there are more jobs, more tables, and more data loads in data warehousing.

When it comes to stability, I would rate it as good, an eight out of ten.

The scalability of Control-M is good; we create different servers for different projects instead of putting all jobs on one server, and I would rate scalability as an eight out of ten.

The technical support from Control-M is good; I normally never ask the Control-M team for help as it hasn't gotten stuck for me, however, they are supportive, and I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Positive

We have used different orchestration tools, however, I am not aware of the specific tools you mentioned.

The deployment of the solution is easy.

Regarding the duration of deployment, if everything is proper, I don't see a big challenge. Normally, it takes a day if you have the code ready and follow the process and checklist.

The return on investment seen with Control-M is significant; in my experience, we run more than 100 to 150 jobs a day, and to monitor those jobs, one or two people should be enough since it triggers emails for failures and allows us to view logs within Control-M itself.

I'm not sure about the pricing of Control-M. I didn't get involved at the pricing level.

When comparing Control-M with other solutions, I see that everywhere, orchestration tools are simple, and while they come with basic monitoring and alerting functionalities, the decision to use Control-M often comes down to cost, licensing, and maintenance.

My relationship with BMC is good. 

I recommend Control-M if there are no other tools available as it is easy to use, with easy maintenance and a centralized monitoring system, alerting system, and incident creation. 

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

My use case for Control-M includes file transfer and workload balancing, but it is mostly focused on workflow management.

I love Control-M's reliability and ease of use. It offers ease of adaptability for upgrades, and the GUI features have been enhanced for better readability. Their reporting improvements are notable, and they developed software that helps manage licensing effectively.

Control-M is incredibly reliable, rarely having issues from an administrative standpoint. The high stability means I am rarely surprised by problems. Additionally, time-saving is significant; previously, scheduling involved paper and took much longer. Control-M reduced the scheduling time drastically, taking only about five to ten minutes to add a new job to the workflow.

One area that has room for improvement is support. Early on, support was fabulous, with efficient issue resolution processes. However, since approximately 2015, support has been lackluster, relying too much on email. I would suggest a return to hands-on support engagement.

Aside from the support aspect, I cannot think of anything else that needs improvement.

I started using Control-M in 2000.

Regarding stability, I would give Control-M a ten. Control-M is such a reliable piece of software. I rarely, if ever, have to do anything from an administrative point of view. When someone calls me with a Control-M problem, it surprises me as it is mostly stable.

Control-M is scalable. The easiest way to express this is regarding licensing; as you are scaling up, you should keep up with your licensing. BMC does an annual review, and your account representative will reach out for a licensing software run that generates a report using all Control-M components.

From one to ten, with ten being the best, I would rate their technical support about a seven.

Positive

Concerning Control-M, I previously started out with scheduling package software back in the old Uccel, which was bought by Computer Associates and called CA-7.

Installing Control-M was really quite easy; you simply download it and do the installation. The biggest thing is the front-end work prior to installation, such as deciding which database you will use.

My relationship with BMC is probably transactional. I rarely have to reach out to them.

The BMC service team could be better at being more involved in mapping out migration strategies, though they have a really good process called AMIGO that yields positive outcomes.

In terms of time savings with Control-M, I spend maybe thirty minutes a week, if that, on Control-M compared to other software products I have dealt with.

I did not have much engagement in the pricing area.

Regarding other solutions, Redwood was the only one I was familiar with. I saw a demo on that before 2010 when management was looking at maybe replacing Control-M.

Deployment is on a Windows platform in a high availability environment.

I would recommend Control-M to others looking to implement it, but it is essential to ensure it fits your environment, so doing a proof of concept is always beneficial.

My main business use cases supported by Control-M involve working with healthcare, insurance, telecoms, and banking, both retail and investment, primarily to ensure things are working. Much of this is in regulated industries, so we have established the necessary processes and tools to ensure that Control-M code is properly controlled, allowing us to satisfy SOX audits and other similar regulatory requirements.

Host groups are one of the most valuable (and unrecognised) features in Control-M and allows you to make your code environment agnostic. They allow for load-balancing, simple scaling, and technology groupings. Control-M supports my DataOps and DevOps initiatives by providing a single pane of glass to orchestrate and manage workflows across numerous systems. With the integrations, I have access to all my on-prem and cloud-based applications, and I can write my own interfaces for systems that are no longer supported, such as managing Solaris machines which still run for some of my clients.

Control-M integrates with new or changing technologies within my DataOps or DevOps stack fairly easily. The BMC team consistently develops new integrations at a rate of two or three a month. If they have not already got an integration available, it is very straightforward for me to create one myself, even for older technology through agentless connections to unsupported systems.

Control-M enables new capabilities or business processes that were not previously possible. There is significant capability embedded in the tool, some of which is not immediately obvious. With some creative thinking, I can leverage these capabilities to improve performance and allow Control-M to handle much of the load balancing.

One key element where Control-M could be improved is in providing a better audit trail for converting from development through to test and then to production environments. The process can currently be done, but the XML version is difficult. JSON offers an easier approach and is going to be the standard moving forward, so some XML-related issues will resolve naturally. For those still on XML for source control, it is an ideal opportunity to review procedures within Control-M to ensure compliance.

I joined JP Morgan in 2007, which introduced me to Control-M, and I have essentially been working with Control-M ever since then, marking 18 years this year.

The stability and reliability of Control-M in my experience is commendable; it simply works if set up correctly. Proper analysis of infrastructure requirements, source code control, and growth expectations should be carried out before commencing the migration. Once those factors are right, the conversion should run very smoothly. It is important that the conversion is carried out by a collaboration between teams that understand the old and new systems.

Control-M orchestrates workloads across multiple environments quite easily. I find that the graphical interface is very user-friendly, and although I have traditionally used the desktop interface, the web interface in version 22 is now nearly as effective as the desktop.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Control-M raises interesting points. Pricing is often perceived as high, and the licensing model can be unclear. However, in the end, it is clear that I am paying for a top-end tool which rarely experiences issues, with most problems stemming from the applications being managed rather than the tooling itself.

Regarding other solutions considered before selecting Control-M, I have seen conversions from Redwood and witnessed attempts to convert out of Control-M into a cheaper product. These attempts often ended in failure, leading to a reversion back to Control-M. Currently, I am looking at conversions from TWS into Control-M SaaS, and Axway into Control-M SaaS, along with several other potential conversions.

With proper planning, setuo is straightforward.

The biggest return on investment I have experienced with Control-M is the reduction in support time. If I set things up correctly with appropriate alerting levels, my support team can proactively prevent incidents rather than waiting for something to go wrong. The most significant metric is the number of support tickets prevented, rather than the number of support tickets closed.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Control-M raises interesting points. Pricing is often perceived as high, and the licensing model can be unclear. However, in the end, it is clear that I am paying for a top-end tool which rarely experiences issues, with most problems stemming from the applications being managed rather than the tooling itself.

When considering the overall experience with the migration processes of my customers, I find that if they approach the process with proper planning and due diligence, it typically goes very smoothly. A common mistake is trying to lift and drop what they had in another tool into Control-M without considering process differences, as the tools do not function the same way.

My advice to other companies considering Control-M is to conduct due diligence, examining not just initial costs but also ongoing expenses. It is essential to consider anticipated usage duration and growth patterns, as a correct setup facilitates easy growth, whereas a faulty setup complicates matters.

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

Currently, I'm working as a senior software engineer in HSBC. Here in my organization, we are using Control-M as a batch job scheduler. We use folders, calendars, and templates in Control-M for a number of applications. On a daily basis, as I mentioned earlier, it is a batch job scheduler; we support this application for a number of markets, including seven markets in the APAC region, five markets in MENA, and another market called AOC China. Control-M is used for all these markets, which total around 13 markets. Daily, we have batches where we use shell scripting code in Control-M for routine work by creating a job that runs based on the timings specified. 

These jobs execute commands, and we receive logs. Regarding folders and calendars, we manage our schedules based on holidays, weekends, and month-end requirements with various calendars to avoid running jobs at unwanted times. For example, we have calendars for the first day of the month and for month-end reports. Folders help organize jobs categorized based on APAC, MENA, and AOC China regions, with each folder having jobs executed based on their dependencies and specified timings.

Control-M is very easy to use. There shouldn't be any technical knowledge required for using Control-M. I have experience with AutoSys, and I find Control-M easier to understand. There is no need for technical knowledge to use Control-M, making it more user-friendly compared to other tools in the market. The initial setup for Control-M is easier. The support we receive from BMC is wonderful. They contact us promptly and resolve any issues quickly.

There are a few suggestions for improvement. Currently, the history module captures only seven days of job execution data, and if we had at least 30 days available, that would be beneficial for investigating any issues. Additionally, in the monitoring module, we can only view 15 days of statistics for job execution, which includes details such as start time, end time, and runtime. I recommend that if we could have 30 days of statistics available, it would greatly enhance the Control-M user experience.

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

The product is stable.

The scalability of Control-M rates as a nine out of ten.

Whenever we encounter any issue with Control-M and contact BMC, the support we receive from them is wonderful. They contact us promptly and resolve any issues quickly. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate their support a nine.

Positive

The initial setup for Control-M is easier than other solutions.

Comparing Control-M to other batch job schedulers in the market, I would give it an eight out of ten based on my experience.

Problems with Control-M can arise depending on the data center where the servers are hosted. There are occasional server down issues, which occur rarely and usually last only for a few minutes, after which everything is fine. We are customers of BMC, not partners.

I would definitely recommend Control-M to others because, based on my experience with other tools, BMC is recommended over others. Control-M is easier to understand, with no technical knowledge required. A quick glance at the modules shows that job creation and management is straightforward. Self-script developers can quickly familiarize themselves with Control-M compared to other tools available.

Overall, I rate Control-M eight out of ten.

I mainly use Control-M for scheduling jobs according to my requirements, which allows me to include holidays or exclude Saturdays, Sundays, or any specific time.

I also use cyclic jobs that run in a recurring period and can set up prerequisites before the job runs.

I can implement a File Watcher to establish a rule that a particular job can only run after the upstream job is completed.

I have created several new jobs using these capabilities.

Within Control-M, I use smart folders and jobs, and I can approach scheduling the way I want, so I have used it fully from start to end.

Control-M is straightforward for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows.

I use the XML side for configuration, which requires importing, and I find it user-friendly.

Control-M has been used for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows, especially at JPMorgan Chase Bank where most production support is monitored through Control-M.

I worked as a developer, developed jobs, and sent them to production, and the process was seamless.

My favorite feature about Control-M is the rule-based calendar feature.

The initial deployment of Control-M is straightforward, as it involves a simple installation of a Control-M agent within the server.

Control-M demonstrates strong scalability.

My application alone uses approximately 65 jobs, and for each folder, there are thousands of jobs that can load immediately in production.

When using a filter, the search is quick, and overall scalability has been excellent.

After migrating to Control-M, the positive effect on business-critical applications is evident: whenever a job ends successfully or fails, notifications are sent immediately.

These notifications go to EventBridge, alerting the team to any critical jobs.

High-priority jobs trigger alerts to engage developers immediately, ensuring there is no delay in response.

One area for improvement in Control-M could be in the logs, as they only show when the job started and whether it ended successfully or not.

Since the Control-M agent is running on the servers, we could pull up logs and display the actual error to aid in debugging.

I have been using Control-M for approximately eight to nine years in my career.

Regarding stability, I do not experience any lagging, crashing, or performance issues with Control-M.

Control-M demonstrates strong scalability.

My application alone uses approximately 65 jobs, and for each folder, there are thousands of jobs that can load immediately in production.

When using a filter, the search is quick, and overall scalability has been excellent.

I have never contacted technical support or customer support from BMC regarding Control-M because we have sufficient in-house expertise to share knowledge about it internally.

I started on TWS, Tivoli Workload Scheduler, which is an older tool with a poor user interface.

After transitioning to Control-M, I have been very satisfied with it.

I have not identified pain points until now because the use cases I addressed were fully satisfied by Control-M's capabilities.

Whatever use cases I needed, they were fulfilled by the product.

I used Tivoli Workload Scheduler earlier, but now the company has standardized on Control-M without using any other schedulers.

The initial deployment of Control-M is straightforward, as it involves a simple installation of a Control-M agent within the server.

Only one person is required for deployment, and it can be completed without needing a team.

For both job deployment and software installation, one person typically handles it, as we use an automation process with no manual work, making it a self-service operation.

I have personally used TWS as an alternative to Control-M.

I prefer Control-M over TWS.

The biggest difference between TWS and Control-M is that TWS has a poor user interface, while Control-M has an excellent user interface and alerting capabilities.

TWS requires monitoring on one page without navigation directions, whereas Control-M uses smart folders with parent and subfolders, maintaining a clear graph structure and allowing the creation of custom workspaces.

Regarding data pipelines, I have not explored integrating them via Control-M.

Non-technical users or business users do not need to use Control-M, as they primarily rely on developers or application support.

Currently, all employees at JPMorgan use Control-M for everything except mainframe jobs, which are monitored and developed through Control-M.

For maintenance, a patching team manages it, and I do not experience any downtime with Control-M.

I might not notice maintenance communications since they could be performed behind the scenes or during off-business hours.

I would rate this review an 8 out of 10.

I have used Control-M mostly for batch monitoring across three projects with financial institutions. The primary focus was on batch monitoring and checking the health of the environment in production or pre-production settings. In almost every project, we implemented jobs that check network connection from the mainframe and database health. I monitored and controlled many different processes with Control-M. I mostly used the Windows version, but I have also used the version that operates inside the IBM mainframe.

I did not use Control-M for audit preparation. I knew that other people in my company used Control-M for audit purposes, but that was not my case.

In the mainframe part, Control-M works smoothly and perfectly with no lag or problems. However, in Windows, it certainly has some problems at times. I do not remember which version I was using, but it has a lot of lag when you try to click for rerun. You click it, the job starts working, but the display does not show the information that the job is already running. Sometimes it does not have the option for confirmation, so it was annoying to click run and not see the job working or doing anything because of the lag on the screen. Sometimes you click rerun or click the rerun button twice, so you get a second run that you did not want, but because of the lag, you get the second run. This was the most annoying thing in Control-M.

Regarding what I would want improved, the tool in the mainframe would be very helpful with a report that you can follow directly in the path of the jobs. In the Windows version, you have all the graphics, so you can follow your path and see when it is going to run and how it is scheduled, which allows you to work more easily to change, hold, or make any movement in the job. In the mainframe version, it is complicated sometimes to follow the same path. You need to consult a lot of documentation for the planning of how the jobs are done, but you cannot find this information directly in Control-M in the mainframe.

I think the biggest thing I would like Control-M to improve in the mainframe is some way to track or follow the jobs a little bit more graphically, similar to the Windows version. I know it is very complicated, but that is my feeling.

I would appreciate Control-M being more complex when it has more features, such as when you are making the planning for the batch. The more complex your tool is, the more you can do for certain parameters or to put a job exactly between two different processes. You can accomplish more with a more complex interface and tools. I think probably other job scheduling tools get a little bit easier or offer a more light version and a simplified version, but I think not. At least for me, when I was making the planning or checking the batch, the more complex and different tools for the different situations that you have in the batch is the better.

I have been working with Control-M for about five years.

There are a lot of stability issues, and it depends on the platform. In the mainframe part, Control-M works smoothly and perfectly with no lag or problems. However, in Windows, it certainly has some problems at times. I do not remember which version I was using, but it has a lot of lag when you try to click for rerun. You click it, the job starts working, but the display does not show the information that the job is already running. Sometimes it does not have the option for confirmation, so it was annoying to click run and not see the job working or doing anything because of the lag on the screen. Sometimes you click rerun or click the rerun button twice, so you get a second run that you did not want, but because of the lag, you get the second run. This was the most annoying thing in Control-M.

I do not have a certain response for how scalable Control-M is because every time I have needed to use it, it covers everything and I think that is great scalability. However, I have never been in a situation in which Control-M is insufficient and I need a more powerful tool for scaling or anything related to that. So, at least for my experience, it is great.

In the two projects I have been working on, the maintenance was from BMC directly. I actually did not know that other people can give maintenance or support directly to the tool because I have always used it through BMC, which actually provides great support. It is very useful and they respond very quickly, so I never figured out that we would probably need local support.

In the last project, we had a BMC group who was in charge of us or they responded directly to the last enterprise, in the last company where I was, so it was very helpful. If we had any problem regarding Control-M or BMC, they have a team in the company ready to support us.

I used another one, but I do not remember the name quite well. It was a bit more for DBA, but I do not remember. It was also a job scheduling tool, but I do not remember the name quite well. It was about six or seven years ago.

The initial deployment was pretty easy. Even the one in the mainframe was easy to follow. The one in Windows is super easy to start working with, and if you have minimum knowledge about COBOL and how the mainframe works, you will be very easily walked through the JCL. Also, the feature that you can see the JCL in the Windows version is fantastic.

I am probably not the correct one because I have never done a quotation for the team to integrate the tool for the team or for any specific project, so I do not have information about this.

As I said, I used another job scheduler in the past. I do not remember it quite well, but right now, it is very complicated to see another job scheduler that is not Control-M because I am very used to it. Also, since it is the principal tool in the mainframe for job scheduling, it is also complicated for me to try to figure out another tool for job scheduling because it has a lot of options. It is actually a pretty good tool for monitoring the jobs or for my experience and in the areas where I have been working. So, at this moment I cannot imagine another tool right now because Control-M is actually all that I need for my work.

In the two projects I have been working on, the maintenance was from BMC directly. I actually did not know that other people can give maintenance or support directly to the tool because I have always used it through BMC, which actually provides great support. It is very useful and they respond very quickly, so I never figured out that we would probably need local support.

For my last experience, I would give a rating of ten because we have this team specifically for us. However, in the past with another project when we had to call BMC directly for support, I think that overall I would give them an eight. I would give the support an eight overall.

I give this review a rating of nine.

My main use case for Control-M is job scheduling. I use Control-M for job scheduling by scheduling jobs for the asset team, like OS jobs, MFT jobs, and AFT jobs. I exclusively use Control-M for scheduling.

The best features Control-M offers include monitoring, planning, and forecast. Planning stands out the most for me in Control-M, as it helps me to schedule jobs.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization by allowing us to automate a lot of manual activities, so we are saving time.

Control-M can be improved with GUI features such as job failure monitoring, where the duration can be increased from 30 days to one year so that we can monitor long durations of job failures.

I have been using Control-M for 11 years.

Control-M is stable.

The scalability of Control-M is good.

The customer support for Control-M is fine.

Negative

I did not previously use a different solution.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing indicates that it is cheaper than other automation tools in the market.

We require five staff members for deployment and maintenance, and they all are consultants.

I have seen a return on investment, specifically in terms of money saved. We are saving a lot of time, as many activities that used to take around three to four hours by manual activity have been reduced to 30 minutes to one hour.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing indicates that it is cheaper than other automation tools in the market.

Before choosing Control-M, I did not evaluate other options.

My advice to others looking into using Control-M is that it is easy to use, flexible, and stable. The features in Control-M are good, and the GUI of Control-M is actually very fantastic.

Currently, 500 users are using Control-M in my organization, where the majority of them are from the application team and a few are admin and schedulers. Control-M is currently used extensively, and while we do not have plans to increase its usage, we are using Control-M in different domains.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Control-M is that it makes automation easy. It is easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for my data ops and DevOps processes as things change. I have automated activities on the Linux server while integrating with Control-M.

I would rate this product a 10.