Our organization works with the cloud and databases. Our primary use case for Control-M is automating orchestration and scheduling jobs across the cloud and on-prem. We use it to monitor and report on jobs. We also use the index to integrate with the cloud service. It leverages our ability to manage workloads across various cloud platforms like AWS and GCP.
Cloud Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
We can automate and orchestrate thousands of jobs
Pros and Cons
- "The most valuable features of Control-M are automation and orchestration. It allows a different schedule, and we can manage thousands of jobs. It ensures we can complete them on time accurately. This automation reduces our manual intervention, significantly reducing error."
- "Control-M should receive more notice when it releases new features. The user interface is also a bit complex, and the navigation should be streamlined."
What is our primary use case?
How has it helped my organization?
Implementing Control-M saved us time by reducing our manual intervention. We can divert more resources to meaningful work. It reduced the amount of manual intervention needed by 30 to 35 percent.
In addition to improving efficiency, workflow orchestration enhances our integration with other tools. We can orchestrate across on-prem and cloud environments and reliably create and integrate data pipelines. Workflow orchestration is critical to our DevOps. Control-M is constantly surveying the network.
What is most valuable?
The most valuable features of Control-M are automation and orchestration. It allows a different schedule, and we can manage thousands of jobs. It ensures we can complete them on time accurately. This automation reduces our manual intervention, significantly reducing error.
What needs improvement?
Control-M should receive more notice when it releases new features. The user interface is also a bit complex, and the navigation should be streamlined.
Buyer's Guide
Control-M
July 2025

Learn what your peers think about Control-M. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: July 2025.
862,499 professionals have used our research since 2012.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have used Control-M for a year and a half.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I rate Control-M eight out of 10 for stability.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I rate Control-M nine out of 10 for scalability.
How are customer service and support?
I rate Control-M support eight out of 10.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We used Broadcom before switching to Control-M. The migration was a little complex.
How was the initial setup?
Deploying Control-M is somewhat complex. It's easier to convert to the other tool. We spent more than two weeks on the deployment and received some support from the Control-M side. We had almost five teams of people working on it. First, we set up the environment. Then, we ran the installation and reconfigured the database. After that, we did functional and integration testing.
What was our ROI?
Switching to Control-M reduced our total ownership cost.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Control-M isn't cheap, but this is an enterprise model.
What other advice do I have?
I rate Control-M nine out of 10. I will recommend it. It's easy to integrate and has the flexibility we need.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Public Cloud
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.

Administrator at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
With critical path functionality, we can tell ahead of time if there are problems with a critical job
Pros and Cons
- "It is simple to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines and to ingest data from different platforms. It integrates well between platforms."
- "I would like to see more auditing capabilities. Right now, it has the basics and I've been trying to set those up to work with what our auditors are looking for."
What is our primary use case?
We use it for scheduling nightly processing of data.
How has it helped my organization?
It has improved our organization a lot. It has helped us control any problems that we have with jobs. We have critical jobs that run and we can tell ahead of time if there's a problem. There are alerts that we can send out. And if a certain job goes down, we can tell what the impact is and which jobs are impacted that are waiting for that job to complete.
We're better able to meet our service level agreements because we do a lot with the Fed. There are certain things we have to have done at a certain time. The automation the product provides means we either meet our or are ahead of our deadlines. In addition, we can tell if a job is running long and if it's going to meet the SLA. And if it's running long we can see why it's running long. That's a benefit for us.
Before, we used to schedule jobs on the servers and we'd have issues with the servers. With Control-M, we can tell if there are any issues coming up because we can run the critical path and see if there are problems before they actually happen. On the server, we couldn't necessarily tell if something wasn't running.
When it comes to creating actionable data, it gives the auditors a very accurate and timely report. Our audit preparation process is much easier. We don't have to do as many manual reports anymore. Previously, it was painful. We had to do everything manually with multiple spreadsheets and it was just ugly. With Control-M, it's all in the database and we just extract the information from the database.
Also, our management team is happy with the orchestration of our data pipelines and workflows. They're happy because they get to see the information through the reports that we create. We're also meeting our service level agreements with the end-users, in terms of getting them their data. And customers are happy because their information is being put into their accounts on time and correctly.
And for projects, the orchestration of data pipelines is helping because we can go through the testing before we move something into production. That means that when we have a major project or an upgrade coming up, they can run it all through the test, try different scenarios, sign off on it, and then move it into production. It's a very streamlined process. If we didn't have Control-M, our projects would be slower because we'd probably have to be doing a lot of stuff manually.
It's very critical for our business. If we have an outage coming up, for example, if we have to shut down power, we can tell what's going to run and if anything is critical during that time frame. We can manage the data much more easily.
What is most valuable?
- The reporting facility is very helpful in creating reports for auditing.
- The FTP function is very easy to use.
- It is simple to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines and to ingest data from different platforms. It integrates well between platforms.
- The Control-M interface is also very easy and very comprehensive. It's pretty simple to navigate through all the different functions.
It's very important for us that Control-M orchestrates all our workflows. And the plugins have enhanced what we already have.
What needs improvement?
I would like to see more auditing capabilities. Right now, it has the basics and I've been trying to set those up to work with what our auditors are looking for.
For how long have I used the solution?
I've been using Control-M for 12 years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
It's very stable. We've had no downtime with it. The only time that ever happens is if we have lost the server but that's been very rare.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It's scalable. We use it across multiple states, geographically. We have about 1,600 end-users.
How are customer service and support?
The technical support is wonderful. I've had no issues with them. Contacting them is very simple, you can do it online. And I usually get a response back within an hour.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We did not really have a previous solution. We just scheduled tasks on the servers. There was no uniformity.
What was our ROI?
Our return on investment is that we don't have a lot of downtime anymore. The information that we receive and post to our customers' accounts is quick and there are fewer errors. As a result, we don't get as much feedback from the customers compared to what we used to get.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The pricing is reasonable. It's not an exorbitant amount. The licensing is pretty reasonable for the number of jobs that we run.
The plugins will be an additional cost.
What other advice do I have?
The only maintenance required is due to the updates that come out from BMC. Three people manage that part of it.
If someone said to me they're looking for a process automation solution, but they're concerned that Control-M isn't modern enough to work with multiple cloud-based data sources and tools, I would tell them they can test it. They can physically set up a test function and see the product work for themselves. It wouldn't be a full-on PoC, just a snippet, but they could see the functionality and how things interact. It depends on what they're trying to accomplish too.
My advice is "use it." It's very end-user-friendly. It works, depending on what you're trying to do. All the platforms work very well and it doesn't take a lot to get it up and running. And the help is out there if you need help.
Overall, it's very well done. We go through the AMIGO (Assisted Migration Operation) process, and there's a lot of help out there for Control-M. There's a community as well if we have questions. We really have no complaints. The solution has sped up our process execution.
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Buyer's Guide
Control-M
July 2025

Learn what your peers think about Control-M. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: July 2025.
862,499 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Automation Engineer at CARFAX
Integrates with many solutions, significantly improves our execution time, and has a good price-to-performance ratio
Pros and Cons
- "Our ability to integrate with many different solutions has been invaluable. The new approach of the automation API and jobs-as-code is also valuable."
- "The biggest improvement they could have is better QA testing before releases come out the door."
What is our primary use case?
We use it for our workload automation. We use it as a single pane of automation for our enterprise.
We are currently using three different environments for three different productions. We have production data tasks, and we have multiple different levels spread out.
We are currently using its most recent version. In terms of deployment models, they have both models. They have an on-prem solution, and they also have a SaaS solution. It just depends on what your company needs. They can take care of you.
How has it helped my organization?
Over the past so many years, I have learned that one of the most important features is giving everybody one tool that can do many different types of automation and workflows. That's been invaluable. Instead of having multiple tools for different teams and different platforms, Control-M has become the one-stop-shop for a lot of these automations.
It is very easy to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines with Control-M. It allows us to ingest and process data from different platforms. It could take us anywhere from a day to a week to get a new integration in place. We've taken it upon ourselves to try to introduce that to all of our internal customers as well.
It can orchestrate all our workflows, including file transfers, applications, data sources, data pipelines, and infrastructure with a rich library of plug-ins, which is very important for us. We try to utilize all new plugins that come out. If our company uses it, we try to use that plugin at least somewhere in our infrastructure.
In terms of creating, monitoring, and ensuring delivery of files as part of our data pipeline, it is a recent project, and it is something I've been learning about recently. However, having the ability to set up a job, set up a connection, deploy that job, and automatically have the feedback on where your files are when they've been moved has made life five times easier.
It has had an effect on our organization when creating actionable data. It has decreased the time to resolve dramatically. Everywhere I've worked, having Control-M orchestrate those alerts has been invaluable.
Our internal customers and management really appreciate the ability to be proactive before things really devolve into a problem or a high-severity incident. We're trying to incorporate analytics and proactive notifications as much as possible to decrease our downtime dramatically.
It impacts our business service delivery speed. Within the past few years, we have taken projects that normally would have taken multiple months, but the duration came down to a couple of weeks. So, we've increased our productivity tenfold.
Its impact on the speed of our audit preparation process has been great. With some of the built-in tools and some of the built-in reporting, being able to pull that data at any given moment has aided audit and probably increased our personal response time tenfold. We're able to get reports and audit out to the requesters within a week, if not sooner. Without Control-M, it would typically take us at least a month or so to get that out.
It has dramatically improved our execution times. We're able to get solutions out the door much quicker. A lot of our automations have been built around that, and we're able to get valuable output relatively quickly. When developing a new solution, without having Control-M, we would spin our wheels trying to come up with something that could only do a fraction of what Control-M can do at this point. Especially for a new solution or a new execution, we would be looking at a couple of weeks if not a couple of a month or two to come up with something deliverable. With Control-M, we're able to get that down to a week or two.
What is most valuable?
Our ability to integrate with many different solutions has been invaluable. The new approach of the automation API and jobs-as-code is also valuable.
What needs improvement?
The biggest improvement they could have is better QA testing before releases come out the door.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using this solution for about 10 years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I love it. It is rock solid. It is very stable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
There are no limits. You can easily scale up depending on your workload or whatever you need in a very short time. You can pretty much automate it at that point.
It is being used extensively in the organization. We do have multiple locations, but because we're using a web client, it is hard to say exactly how many end users are using it at this point. It is a company-wide solution. So, we probably have a couple of hundred users at this point.
How are customer service and support?
They're very responsive. I'd rate them a 10 out of 10.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I personally have always used Control-M as my primary. I do know that other companies have experimented in the past, but I've always come back to Control-M.
How was the initial setup?
I wasn't involved in the deployment. I always came on a little afterward.
In terms of maintenance, it is relatively maintenance-free besides the patches that come out. They come out pretty and frequently, but when they do, they're pretty comprehensive. Other than that, maintenance is pretty minimal. Because it is low maintenance, our engineering team does the maintenance when required.
What was our ROI?
We have absolutely seen an ROI. Over the last five years, I've heard we've done price analysis, especially with other tools. We always come out on top with Control-M. It always has the best price-to-performance ratio.
It is critical to our business. I don't know the facts and figures, but from anecdotes and talking to other management and up levels, I can say that it is considered a priceless solution in our environment.
If we no longer had Control-M, a lot of our most important pipelines would fall apart. Workflows would go unnoticed. The automation is so deeply integrated at this point that there's no telling what would break at this point. There may be things that we're not even thinking of.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
For the tooling that you get, the licensing is acceptable. It has competitive pricing, especially with all the value that you get out of it.
There are additional costs with some of the additional modules, but they are all electives. Out of the box, you get the standard Control-M experience and the standard license. They're not forcing some of the modules on you. If you decide that you do need them, you can always purchase those separately.
What other advice do I have?
I would advise working with the engineers, reading the documentation, and going into it expecting to set up high availability.
Control-M has been around a while. They're very quick to market, and they're very quick to adapt. At this point, they do have offerings, either on the way or recently released, that can support multiple cloud environments.
We are currently not using the Python Client, but that is on our board, and I do intend on investigating. We are utilizing some parts of the AWS integration.
I would rate it a 10 out of 10.
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Limitless scalability, good support, and it has improved our incident resolution time
Pros and Cons
- "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."
- "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."
What is our primary use case?
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.
How has it helped my organization?
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%.
What is most valuable?
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.
What needs improvement?
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.
For how long have I used the solution?
I began working with Control-M approximately 20 years ago.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
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.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
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.
How are customer service and support?
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.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
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.
How was the initial setup?
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.
What about the implementation team?
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.
What was our ROI?
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.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The licensing is managed by the commercial section of our organization.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We evaluated several options and we found that Control-M was the most complete solution.
What other advice do I have?
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.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Public Cloud
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Operations Support Analyst at a retailer with 5,001-10,000 employees
Speeds up ticket resolution for opening and assigning a ticket
Pros and Cons
- "Control-M provides us with a unified view, where we can easily define, orchestrate, and monitor all our application workflows and data pipelines. It also provides the ability to filter. So, if I don't want to see everything, I can also narrow it down or open ViewPoint. This is very important since we have thousands of jobs to monitor. If we did not have this ability, it would be very difficult to see what is going on."
- "Control-M reporting is a bit of a pain point right now. Control-M doesn't have robust reporting. I would like to see better reporting options. I would like to be able to pull charts or statistics that look nicer. Right now, we can pull some data, but it is kind of choppy. It would be nicer to have enterprise-level reporting that you can present to managers."
What is our primary use case?
It provides enterprise scheduling for a lot of things, e.g., supply chain, payroll, reporting, sales and marketing, and web services, which is our online store and ordering.
We are currently running jobs on Control-M for databases, web apps, proprietary applications, Workday, Oracle, WebSphere, Kafka, and Informatica stuff on Unix and Linux. It is flexible. I haven't had any problems with compatibility.
It used to be on-prem, but now it is in a different data center in a different city. So, it is a VM.
How has it helped my organization?
We use the GUI, but there is a web interface that some users are using on the business side. Those users can easily check on their job flows on the web interface, so they can see whether their job has completed or it is waiting for something. It can check the status and history of what happened, for example, the previous day.
What is most valuable?
The scheduling is quite easy to use and pretty robust.
Control-M provides us with a unified view, where we can easily define, orchestrate, and monitor all our application workflows and data pipelines. It also provides the ability to filter. So, if I don't want to see everything, I can also narrow it down or open ViewPoint. This is very important since we have thousands of jobs to monitor. If we did not have this ability, it would be very difficult to see what is going on.
It is easy to use, and you can set things up very quickly. We can copy jobs, making copies of the existing configurations and setup.
What needs improvement?
Control-M reporting is a bit of a pain point right now. Control-M doesn't have robust reporting. I would like to see better reporting options. I would like to be able to pull charts or statistics that look nicer. Right now, we can pull some data, but it is kind of choppy. It would be nicer to have enterprise-level reporting that you can present to managers.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Control-M for at least 12 years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I haven't seen any significant issues with Control-M in several years, e.g., we haven't had to call support. So, it has been very stable.
It runs all the time. We are running thousands of jobs with little issue, especially when I compare it to some of the other systems that we use for other things. It has been very stable.
One to two people are needed for day-to-day administration. I usually do it myself.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I haven't seen any problems with scalability in terms of performance or stability.
There are at least 50 people using Control-M. Some of them would be architects, senior programmer analysts, database administrators, Unix administrators, software engineers, and team leads.
How are customer service and technical support?
I had an issue one time at my previous company. There was some issue with the database. We worked with Level 2 support to fix it. Other than that, there is not too much to talk about really in terms of problems.
The integrated guides and how-to videos are very good in the solution’s web interface for reducing the time to full productivity with Control-M. BMC puts out a lot of webinars and videos on their YouTube channel. Sometimes I do use those. I go in and watch the video or webinar to see what is new or how to do things, which is very valuable.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We migrated from CA Unicenter, which was out of service and quite clunky. That system didn't have a graphical user interface; it was command line-based. It had a console, so it was very difficult to see what was going on. It was also difficult to troubleshoot. It took a long time to find information or set things up. Therefore, management decided to move to Control-M, especially since I had experience with it. It has been much easier to use and work with than CA Unicenter.
CA didn't have File Watchers. It had another way of achieving that outcome, but it was very cumbersome and not always reliable. It was also difficult to troubleshoot.
There is a lot of logic in Control-M that you can do. For example, after a job completes, there are actions you can do. There are actions before the job completes or before it starts. There are actions you can do afterwards. There was some logic that you can add to the job, and we just didn't have it with CA.
The calendars are also a lot easier to work with using Control-M. The CA calendars were just terrible. In Control-M, we have a lot less calendars, about 20 calendars, compared to 80 or 100 in CA.
It is faster to implement things like new jobs or projects with Control-M. Whereas, in the past, certain things would be executed manually, like scripts and workflows. It is very easy to use. I can set up jobs and workflows quickly, which helps developers to test.
How was the initial setup?
It is very easy to set up a PoC. If someone just wants to do a quick test, it is very easy to do. Assuming that everything is in place, it is quite easy to test or set up cyclic jobs.
We did the setup twice. The first time was a migration from another system, which was not BMC. That took three months, which was still pretty fast, and it was very successful. The second time was an upgrade to version 19, and that took about two months, and it was also quite successful. From my perspective, the solution was very good as far as upgrades go. We didn't have any major issues, before or after the upgrade.
What about the implementation team?
We had a vendor help us out, but overall it was very smooth and a success. We used Control-M’s Conversion Tool when migrating from CA Unicenter to Control-M and the vendor helped us. Using the Conversion Tool was very important because it speeded up the process. It took all the information from one system and transferred it over, which saved us a lot of time. So, we spent more time on the verification. We spent less time on the setup and spent more time just verifying the setup to make sure everything was correct. It was a time saver for us.
My experience with BMC during our initial deployments and upgrades was very good. I got quick responses with good information. The people that I dealt with were knowledgeable and helped to resolve the problems. So, my experience was very positive. I would rate them as 10 out of 10. I never had any issues.
What was our ROI?
Control-M has helped us achieve three times faster issue resolution. We have it integrated with ServiceNow, so it tickets automatically. Whereas, in the past, we used to do it manually. We had operators opening tickets, so it speeds up ticket resolution for opening and assigning a ticket. Also, Control-M captures some errors. Sometimes, this helps to troubleshoot any problems. You can set up alerts for jobs that run too long, etc. So, it has a lot of features that we use.
Control-M helped us double or triple our Service Level Operations performance.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
CA sent us a proposal and IBM also sent one for Tivoli Workload Scheduler. We saw their presentations and packages, then did some research. We thought Control-M was the best solution based on experience and feedback from others. I had experience on Control-M already. I had been working on it for several years and had a positive experience. The other thing was just ease of use. Tivoli and Unicenter just do not seem as polished. They didn't look as easy to use, especially Tivoli. I think we heard that Tivoli was very clunky and not easy to use.
It was mostly my experience with it. Control-M was easy to use, very stable with no issues, and easy to configure and maintain. Whereas, CA was not as easy to use nor polished. CA also always keeps on buying other companies and incorporating things, so the experience is not as smooth. With Tivoli, we just heard that it was terrible to use and lacked a good interface. We had another Tivoli product from IBM for backups, and it was just terrible.
What other advice do I have?
Give Control-M a chance. If somebody is considering the solution, they should install a demo on their system and use it. It is very easy to use. It has a lot of options and features. BMC is pretty good when it comes to upgrades and implementing new features, so there is always stuff coming in. There are a lot of new options that we haven't even tried.
Of course, you should compare all your options, but Control-M is a good choice. It is probably the best.
In the future, we will probably use Control-M as part of our DevOps automation toolchains and leverage its “as-code” interfaces for developers.
I would rate it as nine out of 10. The reporting is something I would like to see improved. Other than that, there is not much I dislike about it. I work with it every day. I have been working with it for the last dozen years or so. It is an excellent product. It just needs more reporting.
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Analyst at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Our batch jobs are automated, so we can check our dependencies with minimal manual intervention
Pros and Cons
- "Our data transfers have improved using Control-M processes, e.g., our monthly batches. When we used to do things manually, like copying files and reports, we used to take three to four days to complete a batch. However, with the automated file transfers and report sharing, we have been able to complete a batch within two and a half days and our reports are on time to users. So, 30% to 40% of the execution time has been saved."
- "After we complete FTP jobs, those FTP jobs will be cleared from the Control-M schedule after the noon refresh. So, I struggle to find out where those jobs are saved. Then, we need to request execution of the FTP jobs again. If there could be an option to show the logs, which have been previously completed, that would help us. I can find all other job logs from the server side, but FTP job logs. Maybe I am missing the feature, or if it is not there, it could be added."
What is our primary use case?
Most of my work goes through Control-M, e.g., all my development work. When it goes to production, it moves to batches. This will be either daily or monthly batches.
There are many applications running in Control-M, e.g., a quantitative risk management ALM application.
Most of our production jobs at the organization level are fixed through Control-M, running as either mainframe jobs, Informatica jobs, or QRM software-related jobs. Also, file sharing through FTP jobs and dependency setups between different software patches all run through Control-M.
How has it helped my organization?
We use file transfer jobs in our workflows. For example, if I want to share reports to end users in the production shared area, where specific users have access, Control-M makes this very easy as soon as a job is complete. The FTP job copies the report to a defined shared area, triggering an email to the user with a link. As soon as users are notified through email, they can open the email and click on the shared link to view the reports.
We have automated critical processes with Control-M. Our report deliveries are now automated. We automated our batch jobs and can check our dependencies through Control-M with minimal manual intervention. This has saved a lot of time and manual mistakes. For example, we used to copy old reports and send them via email, then users would come back to us, saying, "These are not this month's reports. These are old reports." After automating these reports with Control-M, there were no errors at all.
What is most valuable?
Multiple software can be collaborated through Control-M, then we can seamlessly monitor when it goes into production after a scheduled daily or monthly deployment. Even though we don't have any privileges to change these jobs, we can monitor them with read access and see how they are being executed. We can also verify their dependencies and see the logs. If there are any failures, we can get the logs from Control-M and fix them in the development environment, in the cases that are required to be done as soon as possible. It provides a complete picture about how the batches are running in production.
We have a lot of things that need to be considered. Everything needs to be done one after another in Control-M, where it provides us a pictorial representation of job dependencies, and even a person without technical knowledge can understand it by looking at the pictorial representation of jobs. So, we can provide the exact time when it can start. Then, we can update the users about the expected time for the job's completion. In case of any delays, we can understand them, then provide a new ETA to the users. Without Control-M, it would be difficult to provide these estimates.
We are using the web interface. We are not going through the mobile because we are a bank. Everything we do is through our laptops, not through a mobile. The web interface supports our business initiatives well. Whenever we want to see the updates, we need to connect to Control-M. We know what needs to be monitored and verify them depending on what their dependencies are. If the batch is still running, we can understand the historical information, then calculate and provide an ETA to users.
What needs improvement?
After we complete FTP jobs, those FTP jobs will be cleared from the Control-M schedule after the noon refresh. So, I struggle to find out where those jobs are saved. Then, we need to request execution of the FTP jobs again. If there could be an option to show the logs, which have been previously completed, that would help us. I can find all other job logs from the server side, but FTP job logs. Maybe I am missing the feature, or if it is not there, it could be added.
When integrating different projects through Control-M, sometimes dependencies cannot be identified.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Control-M for almost six years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I have never faced any issues with stability. It is very good.
10 to 20 people are administering it.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I have never faced any issues with its scalability.
500 to 600 people are actively using Control-M. These are business analysts, team leads, managers, developers, and senior developers. Anyone who is touching the development and production would have access.
How are customer service and technical support?
Whenever we have issues, they are resolved through our organization's admin.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
With the integrated file transfer feature, most things are automated. Previously:
- We used to copy the report, then send manual emails. However, with this feature, we are able to complete tasks with minimal monitoring because they are automated. Users are automatically notified as soon as the reports are complete.
- We used to work during the daytime and after business hours. We were forced to open and view that the reports were there. Or, we waited until the next day to copy the reports, sharing and sending them by email. With this feature, we are less bothered. We can wait until the morning of the next day. We just go into the office and see if the reports have been shared already, seeing that everything is okay. So, during the night, some reports are generated and emailed to the users.
The integrated file transfer feature has saved us a lot of time and manual effort, approximately two to three hours a day. Also, users are notified as soon as the reports are complete, where they used to wait until the next morning. They can just verify their email using the office provider mobile. Then, they connect to their laptops and get the reports. So, if they need the reports and are waiting for them, then they are not required to wait until the next morning to receive them, saving about 10 hours of their time.
How was the initial setup?
I was not involved with the initial setup. That was before my time.
What was our ROI?
Our data transfers have improved using Control-M processes, e.g., our monthly batches. When we used to do things manually, like copying files and reports, we used to take three to four days to complete a batch. However, with the automated file transfers and report sharing, we have been able to complete a batch within two and a half days and our reports are on time to users. So, 30% to 40% of the execution time has been saved.
Control-M has helped us achieve faster issue resolution. Whenever we come across any data-related errors, instead of going into the process, we just get the Control-M log. Nearly 50% of our issues are resolved by looking at the Control-M logs.
Control-M has helped us to improve Service Level Operations performance by 30%, because we no longer need to manually copy reports and receive email notifications. So, the process has improved a lot.
What other advice do I have?
Organizations looking for seamless integration with different applications can move forward with Control-M. In my experience, Control-M provides a good solution. It also integrates with different applications and software.
At this point, we are not using the solution's streamlining for data and analytics projects.
I would rate it as eight out of 10.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Junior Unix Specialist at Oy Samlink Ab
Multiple scheduling options allow you to do anything you want, whenever you want, and however you want
Pros and Cons
- "The multiple scheduling options allow you to do anything you want, whenever you want, and however you want. You can easily be in control when things happen."
- "The unifying features between Control-M for different platforms needs improvement. The scheduling options on the Control-M mainframe jobs are different than they are on our Linux server. There are a few differences here and there."
What is our primary use case?
We are using Control-M mainly to schedule our jobs and also for file transfers. We are now in the process of using Control-M to take some workload off our mainframe.
We use it mainly for job automation and handling large chunks of data automatically.
We have Informatica workflows, which make up about 50% of all our jobs. Then, we have all kinds of software on Windows and Linux servers. The file transfers are another big thing on Control-M. However, we are mainly using it to automate our in-house scripts, like monitoring and whatever needs to be done.
We mainly use desktop clients. Some users are also on the web. Currently, we don't use the mobile interface at all.
How has it helped my organization?
We have some batch jobs or Informatica workflows that create the files for file transfers. We have those on Control-M, so it is all automated and happens through the conditions.
Our daily customers' accounts and credit card actions files are processed by Control-M automations every day. That is pretty much part of the core of our business. Other critical components are some monitoring scripts and health checks on our servers, which are run from Control-M. This has made things easier because we have the Batch Impact Manager on Control-M. So, we can use that to send emails, like, "We haven't received the daily-files yet. Or, the daily files are going to be late." Therefore, we have proactive monitoring if things aren't running on schedule.
I don't think it transfers data any faster than before. However, we now have better control and can also send emails to the correct people directly from Control-M, like, "Hey, this transfer is now complete." In terms of data transfers, and if something goes wrong, it is easy to just rerun the file transfer.
If we are using the Batch Impact Manager, it has caught a few times where the job has been running for a while and may not meet the deadline. There may be a loop somewhere, where one job has been stuck for a few hours. So, in this case, the Batch Impact Manager notifies us that it is taking quite long. There are days that this is useful to locate issues.
What is most valuable?
Multiple scheduling options allow you to do anything you want, whenever you want, and however you want. You can easily be in control when things happen.
Control-M provides us with a unified view where we can easily define, orchestrate, and monitor all our application workflows and data pipelines. This is quite important because I am our Control-M administrator. So, it is pretty important to me personally, but also for the company. It may not yet be quite in the center of our business, but we are clearly using Control-M as our main scheduling program.
What needs improvement?
Since we are using version 9.0.18, the web interface is a bit outdated and doesn't really support all our needs. However, we are migrating to 9.0.20, which should give us a lot more options, even in the web interface.
The unifying features between Control-M for different platforms needs improvement. The scheduling options on the Control-M mainframe jobs are different than they are on our Linux server. There are a few differences here and there.
There are capability-related issues between versions, but I think the latest fix pack has that covered. BMC has been doing a pretty good job about this.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been Control-M for two and a half years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The stability is pretty good. We haven't had any issues with Control-M being unstable in the last two years. They are up and running 24/7.
One person is the minimum needed for day-to-day administration of Control-M. We have three admins, who are also our SFTP and file transfer team. Someone just decided that they should be the Control-M admins, so they made all three of us go through the admin classes. Now, we have three admins.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Scaling has been pretty simple and a straightforward process. We just recently got the Control-M Workload Change Manager, which is an additional plugin to the main software. That installation was also quite easy. We got it up and running pretty quickly.
We have about 10 people using Control-M actively, who are system specialists and business intelligence specialists. We have three admins, then we have some batch job designers from the mainframe team using Control-M. We have also trained some of our Informatica people so they can monitor their own workflows and create new jobs. They can basically do whatever they need to do by themselves.
How are customer service and technical support?
I would rate their technical support as five out of five. They have been really helpful and knowledgeable. Even though there have been some cases where support has originally said, "Well, we don't know for now," they have asked for data and provided us with a solution pretty much every time we have had any issues.
If they don't have a solution on hand, they take it to the lab. We communicate with them and the lab, then everything works out pretty well. Even if there is a big issue, which isn't very common, they have just taken it, and said, "We will see. We will go to the lab where we will test".
The interface guide and YouTube videos have been somewhat useful. However, there is too much data in there. When you try to search something, you get too many search results that weren't exactly what you were looking for.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I don't think anything has changed that much. We used to have CA-7 before Control-M. Now, Control-M is just kind of taking over. So, not much change happened. It is just a new software to do the old job.
We have benefited from Control-M. It is much easier to use and a bit more versatile than CA-7.
I personally don't use CA-7 because it is located on the mainframe, and I'm not a mainframe guy.
How was the initial setup?
I wasn't involved in the initial setup of Control-M.
What about the implementation team?
We are currently in the process of upgrading Control-M into a new version. We have been working closely with BMC's technical people.
What was our ROI?
So far, I think it has been good. No one has been talking about getting rid of Control-M. It is more like we are increasing our Control-M usage, if anything.
Control-M has improved our service levels on pretty much any aspect. Now, we can see the Control-M estimates of when a certain job will be completed. They become pretty accurate once a job has been running for a week or two. It can predict quite well when a certain job will be ready. So, if a customer asks us, "When are we going to receive our file?" I can check on Control-M, then say, "Well, I would say around...," whatever time it shows and let them know.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We have the CA-7 on the mainframe, and I have seen it being used along with Control-M. Control-M seems to offer a much better user interface, mainly because it is graphic and not on the black screen of a mainframe session.
I don't think our data analysts are currently using Control-M. We do have Informatica software in use, which is some sort of data analyst software.
What other advice do I have?
Always make sure that you have at least double checked everything, because Control-M does everything you tell it to do and exactly as you tell it. Therefore, make sure you are giving the right orders.
Working with Control-M has been pretty complex, but that has been mainly due to our corporate policies since we are located in Finland and in the banking sector. So, there are hundreds of things that we had to consider. While it has been a complex process, it has been more because of our corporate policies rather than Control-M. Once we decided everything, and everything was approved, just taking Control-M into use has been a pretty straightforward process.
Definitely take the scheduler course provided by BMC. That was hugely helpful for all of us. Trying to learn Control-M on your own will be a tough path to walk.
We have Control-M on the mainframe. As the mainframe will be taken down in a few years time, we have to replace the mainframe scheduling agent with something else. That will be Control-M.
Our dev teams are running their own fields. Once they are ready, they go through systems to store into production, then we can automate it. However, during DevOps and other testing phases, we may not use Control-M at all.
I would rate Control-M as a nine out of 10.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
ITSM Implementation Manager at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees
Provides us with a unified view where we can easily define, orchestrate, and monitor all of our application workflows and data pipelines
Pros and Cons
- "The ability to integrate file transfers has been instrumental in allowing us to accomplish the things we need with Control-M. In our industry, we take a lot of data and either push it down to the stores or retail grocery stores. We take files and push them down to the stores or pull files and information from the stores and bring it back to corporate. So, it's two-way communication with file transfers. One of the bigger things that we do with Control-M is scheduling data moves and moving data from one location to another."
- "The MFT applications should have more functionality and flexibility within that tool. Having more flexibility with that tool for handling the one to many or many to one concept. Like being able to take data from one source and push it to many locations or pull data from many locations and bring it back into a single source. That's why we still use our TPS program for the file transfers just because we don't have some of those capabilities available to us within MFT."
What is our primary use case?
I manage the team responsible for the tool itself, the administration of the system. We have a separate team internally that does all the operations and scheduling facets of the tool.
Our primary use case includes supply chain, payroll, accounting, information technology, pricing validations, etc. Most of the areas of the business have some facet into Control-M.
How has it helped my organization?
We have automated critical processes with Control-M. It is critical in a lot of different processes. We use it for all of our server patchings every month, we schedule that so that it kicks off the job every month, then goes and updates all of our Linux servers, for example, or our Windows servers. It does deployments and things that are critical to IT business.
Automating this critical process has taken the human aspect out of that process. So, that user no longer has to be up in the middle of the night to do server patching. That's all hands-free, completely zero downtime, knowing back to the customers. It's been beneficial in that regard.
Control-M helped improve data transfers. Specifically things like processing sales information. So we have all the data from our various retail locations, our individual stores that get processed every day automatically using Control-M. And we have our daily pricing information that we send to the stores to update all the pricing for all the different locations. Those would be some of the bigger areas of business automation.
It has helped to improve data transfers. Specifically things like processing sales information. So, we have all the data from our various retail locations, our individual stores that get processed every day automatically using Control-M. And we have our daily pricing information that we send to the stores to update all the pricing for all the different locations.
What is most valuable?
The most valuable features are the scheduling aspects of the tool and to have everything scheduled and automated to be able to run on a set timeframe.
It's important to our work because we can set it and forget it. We don't have to worry about logging in and pulling that data every day or manipulating the data. It can be run on a schedule and then the proper timing after dependencies are run.
Control-M provides us with a unified view where we can easily define, orchestrate, and monitor all of our application workflows and data pipelines. It's not super important in my particular line, but it is important for the operations and scheduling team that use the tool.
We use mobile interfaces. They allow the development teams to be able to go in and set up the jobs that they need to schedule them accordingly. There's still quite a bit of a gap between the two tools. So, a lot of our users still prefer to use the desktop client.
We use Control-M to integrate our file transfers within our application workflows. But we do not use the BMC MFT program. We use a different third-party file transfer tool.
The ability to integrate file transfers has been instrumental in allowing us to accomplish the things we need with Control-M. In our industry, we take a lot of data and either push it down to the stores or retail grocery stores. We take files and push them down to the stores or pull files and information from the stores and bring it back to corporate. So, it's two-way communication with file transfers. One of the bigger things that we do with Control-M is scheduling data moves and moving data from one location to another.
We also use Control-M to streamline our data and analytics projects. It's not doing any automation now. That would be done with the tools that it feeds, like Cognos or other reporting tools. It just collects data for us.
The integrated guides and how-to videos in the solution's web interface are okay for some of the basic user questions that we get for how to use the tool and do some of the basics, but from an admin standpoint, which is what I'm responsible for with my team, they're not very helpful. We still go back to BMC Docs, open tickets when we need to, and things of that nature to get the information.
What needs improvement?
The MFT applications should have more functionality and flexibility within that tool. Having more flexibility with that tool for handling the one to many or many to one concept. Like being able to take data from one source and push it to many locations or pull data from many locations and bring it back into a single source. That's why we still use our TPS program for the file transfers just because we don't have some of those capabilities available to us within MFT.
It is still a little difficult to get support on Control-M. It seems to be its own very specific BMC product unlike Remedy and some of the other BMC tools we have. It's quite a bit more difficult to get support for Control-M.
I would rate their support a five out of ten. They're just average to adequate.
You don't have the option to have a dedicated support resource and engineer. Someone that works with you individually to understand your environment, to help you grow and adapt to new things, and to roadmap your maturity within the tool as you do with some of the other BMC tools.
We use Premier Support for other BMC tools, just not this one.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Control-M for two and a half years. The company started using the product in 2014.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
It's very stable. We have no complaints in this area. The application is very well built and it is reliable. We were also very focused on the idea of availability when we built our environment. We are setup with both high availability and a fail-over environments. If we were to have problems with a particular server, we have the secondary to fail over to. Or, worst case, another environment to use in our secondary datacenter.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Scalability is excellent. It's easy enough to spin up another server and add it to the server group.
Pretty much every application that we have in this company has some kind of Control-M piece to it. That's everything from accounting and payroll for our stores and customer interfaces. We're pushing and pulling data and doing different job-related things for almost all applications.
We'll continually use Control-M. Our IT business has 3,400 people. Control-M is mostly used by some of our development teams, traditional application development groups that develop our in-house applications. We have our system administrators, our infrastructure teams, IT security, operations, and those types of groups.
We require only one staff member for day-to-day administration. She was responsible for all the day-to-day administration of the tool like adding users, provisioning users, making sure hotfixes are applied to system upgrades.
We recently did overall system health initiatives. It was also a point of contact for our operations scheduling group. If they have questions on the tool if there are any issues, or things of that nature.
How are customer service and technical support?
Technical support through BMC Support can be challenging at times. If any issues need to be escalated to R&D then you have to work with directly with the team in Israel. This can cause problems coordinating between time zones.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We previously used ESP. There were a few reasons the company decided to move from ESP to BMC Control-M.
1. The need for a product that was distributed based vs. mainframe based. The company was working to retire the mainframe so there wasn't as much of a need for a product that was heavily mainframe focused.
2. We were told that BMC Remedy and BMC Control-M were integrated so job failure ticket automation would be simple.
3. There was a desire to have the same vendor for our automation, orchestration, monitoring, CMDB, and ITSM tools. BMC was able to meet this requirement.
What about the implementation team?
For the initial conversion, we used BMC. Through the last couple of upgrades, we used other BMC preferred partners.
We have used both CFS and Cetan Corporation to assist us with upgrading the application. Both companies were knowledgeable and we were able to perform the upgrades without problems.
Recently, we have been able to upgrade the environments without assistance from a third party.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The licensing and pricing are bundled together with our other BMC products. I don't know the specific cost of Control-M by itself. For us, it is based on how many jobs we run annually. We run roughly 9,000 jobs a year.
If I had to guess, I would say it's in the neighborhood of about $250,000.
Since it is based on a per-job run, if we increase the number of jobs that we run annually, the cost will increase accordingly.
There are also additional operational costs, hardware for servers, databases, BMC maintenance, etc.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
Yes, other vendors were evaluated at that time. Control-M was selected primarily because of the integration between it and other BMC tools.
What other advice do I have?
Make sure that you spend enough time to design and build your environment, both high availability and failover are critical to overall success. Because we rely on Control-M so heavily, it needs to always be available. Control-M is critical to the success of our business, we cannot accept downtime. We do everything we can to keep the system running 24/7, 365. For example, we have invested additional time and resources to fully automate our monthly server patching. Now we can patch our environment with zero impact to jobs.
Another piece of advice, use BMC as a partner for professional services, especially when doing your initial implementation. It is a big endeavor and BMC can help you be successful. Lastly, spend time training your staff on how to use and administer the product. Control-M is a powerful but complex application. It requires skilled and knowledgeable operators and admins to keep the system working well.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.

Buyer's Guide
Download our free Control-M Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros
sharing their opinions.
Updated: July 2025
Popular Comparisons
Camunda
Appian
MuleSoft Anypoint Platform
Pega Platform
IBM BPM
AutoSys Workload Automation
Automic Automation
SnapLogic
IBM Workload Automation
IBM Sterling File Gateway
Redwood RunMyJobs
MOVEit
AWS Step Functions
Nintex Process Platform
GoAnywhere MFT
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Control-M Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros
sharing their opinions.
Quick Links
Learn More: Questions:
- How does Control-M rank in the Workload Automation market compared with other products?
- What licensing options are there for Control-M?
- What are some of the ways in which Control-M can be useful to my company?
- Can Control-M integrate with AWS, Azure, Google Cloud Platform and other similar services?
- Can Control-M's Application Integrator track job status and retrieve output for executing steps, especially in the context of custom integrations?
- What is the biggest difference between Oracle DAC Scheduler and Control-M?
- How does Control-M compare with AutoSys Workload Automation?
- How would you compare Stonebranch Universal Automation Center vs Control-M?
- Can Control-M emulate all the functionalities of TWS in a distributed environment?
- Which is the best Workflow Automation Platform with microservices?