Control-M Reviews

We use Control-M for orchestration.

The best feature of Control-M is its orchestration capabilities for any orchestration that's required. Control-M has positively impacted my organization by helping with orchestrating complex tasks.

The Alerting and Notification system is quite sufficient. It does what it's required to do.

The ability to deploy Control-M both in the cloud and on-premises is very important because the organization has a hybrid strategy, so Control-M helps in scenarios of moving files between on-prem and clouds.

Control-M could be improved on the reporting side. There can be better reporting on tasks and better dashboard capabilities for activities being completed. At the moment, it's a bit cumbersome if you receive an error message. There isn't a central place where you can view all of that.

I have an experience of approximately five years working with Control-M.

The solution is stable.

The on-premise setup of Control-M is not that scalable. As our demands increase, it is almost reaching its bottleneck. If I need to run parallel jobs, let's say double or triple the numbers that I'm currently doing, it will struggle to scale.

I would rate technical support from Control-M as a seven out of ten because the turnaround time was not adequate when running in production.

I've made use of Pub/Sub in Google Cloud before using Control-M. I have not used any other solutions in this category. I would normally make use of the native tools in whatever cloud I was utilizing.

It was already set up when I joined, and it was a very intuitive tool to figure out.

There are time savings from a resource aspect with Control-M. There's definitely value there.

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

My use case with Control-M is to handle scheduling and automation processes.

Control-M's best features are its reliability and user-friendly interface. Control-M has improved our organization by streamlining our workflow and increasing efficiency.

The areas that have room for improvement in Control-M are the user interface enhancements.

I have been using Control-M for more than 10 years in our organization.

I rate the stability of Control-M as an eight out of ten.

Regarding scalability, I rate it a nine out of ten.

I rate the technical support of Control-M as a seven out of ten.

I find it very difficult to quantify the return on investment I have seen with Control-M.

My thoughts on the pricing of Control-M lean towards it being expensive; I would rate it a ten out of ten as very expensive.

I compare Control-M favorably with other solutions and vendors in the market.

I find it easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for our DataOps and DevOps. Control-M is being used extensively across multiple departments in our organization. Approximately 100 users utilize Control-M in our organization. Control-M does require maintenance, and I would say it is complex in some aspects. My relationship with BMC is more transactional than transformative. My advice for others looking to implement Control-M would be to focus on improving their documentation and consider the challenges with add-on products like Workflow Insight, which does not have RBAC, making implementation difficult in organizations like ours.

I use Control-M extensively on a daily basis.

The best features I prefer about Control-M include self-service and SLA management.

In Control-M, the user interface has room for improvement. The user interface can be more friendly and should be more similar to a Control-M/EM client interface. Control-M SaaS is very expensive.

I have been using Control-M for 15 years.

When comparing Control-M with other vendors, BMC is very stable according to the Gartner report, and it has more than 30 years of product lifetime, making it a very good product.

I would rate the scalability of Control-M as excellent, giving it a 10.

I would rate the technical support a 10.

Positive

For on-premises, the task pricing is somewhat expensive, but for SaaS, it is very expensive.

Approximately 10 users use Control-M. My relationship with BMC is more strategic and collaborative, as it is more about buying and selling. I am satisfied with BMC as a strategic partner. I would recommend Control-M for other users because for a company, Control-M is an infrastructure, and every company should have one workload automation product. Control-M is the best choice. My clients are enterprise users. I would rate Control-M overall a 10.

My main use case for Control-M is to process batch workloads. We have multiple batch scripts which need to be run at a particular scheduled time, and we use Control-M for MFT and certain kinds of services where we need files to transfer to the client location.

For batch workload automation, we have SSIS packages and Microsoft SQL packages which need to be executed through the batch file. For MFT, we have Excel files which need to be transferred from source to destination.

The best features Control-M offers are better visibility through the dashboard and an AI-enabled system where users can ask their workflow details through chatting with AI.

The dashboard definitely helps to get better visibility because checking failures one by one by visiting the job is difficult. We are getting the exact figures through the dashboard.

Control-M has impacted my organization positively by improving the SLA and the overall workflow. Timely, we are receiving triggers for daily notifications due to the SLA improvement, and such type of information is useful.

In areas where we need a notification alert whenever the agent goes down, that is something that can be improved so people and clients can be aware and can take immediate action to remediate agent-related issues.

They can work on the integration part where Azure storage and Azure-related things can be integrated seamlessly with Control-M.

I have been using Control-M for the last two years.

Control-M is a great platform to centralize all the workflows. I would rate this product a 9.

Control-M is mainly used for our clients. We use workload automation and batch job automation with Control-M. There are many other BMC products that we use, such as AMI Ops automation, DB2 monitoring, and application infrastructure monitoring.

The user experience with Control-M is good. Users can implement many customizations, and though the licensing is pricey, there are many competitive products available that can provide the same features as BMC. BMC support and some of the customizations are very good. Product support and the ability to manage distributed and mainframe workloads make Control-M an enterprise workload management solution. It is easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for data ops or DevOps processes as things change, and it is not complex compared to other workload automation tools available in the market.

BMC does excellent marketing. Their product narrative is very good. From the functional side, there is no superiority when compared with other products. All products provide the same functionality. If you examine IBM Workload Scheduler, Stonebranch, or Rocket Orchestrator, there are many other products available. These products provide the same functions in one way or another. BMC might provide better user experience and better product support than other products, but there is no clear technical differentiation or value proposition when compared to other products with BMC. They offer essentially the same features.

Control-M has been part of my experience for two to three years.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate BMC's support an eight. They have very good manuals, and they respond to tickets quickly. They provide clear details about issues. From the product support perspective, they always perform well. They continuously evolve rather than letting the product remain static. This is one of the differentiators compared to other products. They quickly evolve with changing technology trends, easily adopt new features, and incorporate them into the product.

Control-M is good so far, other than being somewhat pricey.

The implementation requires significant time and personnel resources, and they are pricey. The migration costs are very high, and the available skills are limited.

I am familiar with other workload automation tools and have used many. Our clients use IBM Workload Scheduler, Rocket Enterprise Orchestrator, CA ESP, and Stonebranch, though I cannot specify why we use BMC instead of those alternatives.

It is difficult to clearly differentiate how Control-M has improved our organization's functions because many other products offer the same functionality. The key factors are how users can easily adapt to the product, the available functions and features in the BMC product, and mainly the product support.

I am using Control-M mostly to automate banking jobs and monitor the jobs at the same time. Since I have been using it for the last year, it is mostly an operator's job as a Control-M operator. What I do is monitor the jobs, and if there is any job delay or job failure, we go through it. I use it to find where the problem is, why the job is failing, or why the job is getting delayed. Then I work with the application team to sort it out.

My favorite feature is in the web version, since I have been asked not to use the UI. In the web version, what I mostly appreciate is that when a job is waiting for any reason, whether a prerequisite is not met or the in-conditions are not satisfied, I can simply go to the waiting info section. There is an option where I can just click on it and I get to know every detail, such as why the job is waiting, whether the prerequisite jobs or the earlier jobs are executing or have failed. So in just one click, I get to know everything about that particular job, including why it is waiting and where the job flow is getting stuck. That is my favorite feature.

I heard that Control-M is going to discontinue the UI version. When I search for a job and ask for the neighbor jobs, such as the predecessors and the successors, it does not give a sequence; the jobs are not in sequence. I have to do some settings and navigate through multiple screens and clicks, and then I find out the information. If I could get the jobs in sequence by default, that would help me a lot in troubleshooting and understanding the job flow, particularly which job is going to run first and which job is going to run after that. This is the thing that I mostly do not appreciate.

I have been using Control-M for the last one year.

In the last year, I have never seen Control-M environment lagging or crashing. Sometimes some servers are down, which is a different matter, but I do not have any experience in the last year where Control-M was down. Failover is a different consideration.

Control-M might be scalable because I remember in April of this year, I attended a roadshow for Control-M and there were very new features, including AI integration. All these features have already been released in April of this year. Seeing those features in Control-M, the AI integration and how easy it has made the job is impressive. For example, in simple English, I can type it down in my environment and jobs get started. With the help of AI, I can make scripts, and if a rerun is required for any particular job, I can do that just by using very simple English language. I would say it is scalable.

I have used multiple tools, but nothing similar to Control-M. I have used Dynatrace, I have used Splunk, I have used SCOM, but nothing similar to Control-M.

It was not very difficult to learn how to use Control-M. It was something new for me, a totally new thing. It was not that difficult. I started learning things, and it hardly took me three months from scratch to understand how things are working in Control-M.

Control-M was already deployed when I joined and started working.

I'm not sure about Control-M because it is only for another team member to use. What I can tell you is it is very helpful to use Control-M in the mainframe platform because we can run and schedule many routines at the same time and we can create some scenarios. By these scenarios, we can run a lot of routines. We can build some scenarios and maintain this in the real world in production environment.

Regarding Control-M, what I can mention is I only know about the platform used nowadays for our team, and I believe it is a very archaic model. Probably there is another interface, better solutions and maybe with an interface easier to use on a daily basis. But what we have nowadays is something not so familiar for people that don't have a complete understanding about how to use.

Regarding Control-M, I'm not the one to use it directly, but I know it is a very powerful tool and very dynamic and helps us a lot on a daily basis. I believe the tools to schedule a routine in Control-M are very helpful. On a daily basis, we can use a lot without some problems. It's very easy to use.

It is necessary to take some time to learn Control-M. More or less a month to be familiar with the first steps. As you continue, you will increase your understanding about the feature and probably need more or less six months.

People in the first initial step need more or less one month to be familiar with some commands and start using Control-M tools. To feel comfortable using it on a daily basis without support, it takes more or less six months. This is the appropriate time to be able to use Control-M.

I have used another tool related to Control-M, but it is not so similar. It is something more related about running only individual routines one, two, or three routines at the same time. It is Topaz. It is a tool directly connected to the mainframe as well, but it is more destined to developers to build routines and programs and run these sources. It is not the same, but it is what I use on a daily basis when I need to run routines.

I have never experienced any issues such as lagging or crashing with Control-M.

The scalability of Control-M is adequate. We need to follow some steps to add some routines, but that's acceptable. What I know about this feature is it is reasonable to use when you need to add some new steps, schedule some new routines, or add some files. It is pretty nice and not a big deal to use.

I didn't need to contact the technical support or customer support for Control-M.

Positive

I would rate Control-M overall an eight out of ten. I believe you can put my company name as entity data. I'm a software engineer.

We are a cloud service provider, and we have been using Control-M for integrating and automating the orchestrating applications in the data workflow in our production. This is the main use case for our flow.

We are using its cloud version, Helix Control-M.

Helix Control-M has helped us schedule the jobs and manage our workload. We save time in running the jobs. There is no impact on the software even if I schedule a hundred jobs at a time. It can accommodate all kinds of jobs. It helps to meet our large-scale requirements.

Helix Control-M’s ability to build, schedule, manage, and monitor application and data workflows in production is good. It is pretty straightforward. It integrates well with different applications, such as AWS, GCP, and various cloud providers, enabling job scheduling directly from the Helix Control-M interface without any agents. Integration is very easy.

We have a single pane of glass for scheduling and viewing job status. We get all the details in one window. We can schedule everything in one window. We did not have any downtime with the Helix Control-M. All the jobs have been running perfectly. Everything is smooth and straightforward.

We are mainly using the AWS Cloud, and we also have some GCP services. We can monitor all the details under the History tab. We can see all the past jobs. 

Helix Control-M gives our company’s business users visibility and control over their jobs and frees up IT personnel for other tasks.

Helix Control-M is very critical for our business. We rely on it. We do not want any other scheduler. It provides us with everything.

Helix Control-M has contributed to the overall stability of our applications and improved user experience. It has taken away some of the administration work.

The flexibility of Helix Control-M allows us to manage tasks efficiently. The user interface is comprehensive and lets me view all my jobs on one page, monitor everything, and access the job history. The UI is superb and flexible to use.

Scheduling multiple jobs at a time is a standout feature. 

There should be an expansion in storing more data as it currently provides data storage for only up to 60 days. 

There can be some complexities with the UI part, especially with the advanced features. Other than that, it has been pretty good.

I have been using it for almost two and a half years.

The stability of the Helix Control-M solution is good. I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.

We also have access to their support. If we face any issues, we get support from them. Everything is good and working as expected.

Helix Control-M is scalable. It is being used by many people in our organization.

We have more than a hundred jobs running, and we have almost eight people managing it. We also have 3-4 end users using it.

The technical support is very polite, helpful, and available 24/7. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

Before Helix Control-M, we used different solutions. We previously used IBM Workload Automation but switched to Helix Control-M because it provides a comprehensive solution for everything and is very manageable without needing a dedicated person. Anyone can learn it. Its learning curve is very small.

The migration to Helix Control-M was straightforward. We did not face any issues.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took about three or four months to settle down. It is also not difficult to maintain.

We received support from BMC tech support and did not require any third-party consultants. We had six or seven people for the deployment of the solution.

The main return on investment with Helix Control-M has been a reduction in downtime and minimization of manual interventions, which has improved our operational efficiency.

The pricing is moderate, not too low or too high compared to other solutions.

We evaluated multiple solutions, including ActiveBatch, before choosing Helix Control-M.

The pricing was similar, but we found Helix Control-M better in terms of job automation and features. Their support was also very good. We got help from them with the orchestration and migration.

Before implementing the solution, thoroughly try out how it works in your current environment. 

My overall rating for Helix Control-M is an eight out of ten.

My main use case for Control-M is to schedule jobs and automate the workflow. A specific example of a workflow I've scheduled and automated with Control-M is a batch flow through which a number of customers receive an automated message about their transaction details on their mobile phones using Control-M jobs.

The best features Control-M offers include automating large workflows, allowing us to run jobs on a scheduled time basis, and requiring no manual intervention.

What stands out to me about the automation and scheduling is the error notification service, which I find very helpful because we do not have to monitor our jobs on a daily basis. Whenever there is an error, the team receives notification regarding the job failure, which makes our work easier.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization by saving a considerable amount of time, and manual intervention is not required for most operations because most things are automated with Control-M. I work as part of the batch operations team, and we used to run Indian batches which typically took around two hours on a daily basis. With the help of automating the batch through Control-M, the batch now takes approximately fifteen to twenty minutes to execute and run, which means we save around one to one and a half hours on a daily basis.

Control-M could be improved by offering more additional features and ensuring that more people are aware of Control-M.

I have been using Control-M for five years.

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is good.

The customer support for Control-M is good.

Positive

For the deployment and maintenance of Control-M, we require majorly four teams: one is needed for operations, one is needed for scheduling the jobs, and one is needed for maintaining Control-M.

I would advise others looking into using Control-M that it is a good tool if you want workload automation to be done and if you want to save time. I have given this review a rating of seven out of ten.

I have been using Control-M on a daily basis. My main use case for Control-M is the scheduling of processing of jobs. A specific example of a job I schedule with Control-M is OS jobs that run a script for backup.

I use Control-M day-to-day mainly for database jobs, OS jobs, MFT jobs, file transfer jobs, and many more.

In my opinion, the best features Control-M offers are advanced scheduling and the processing of various processes at a scheduled time.

Control-M has impacted my organization positively by automating many of our daily based tasks. The automation has helped us as taking backup has become really easy; earlier, we used to do it manually, but now with the help of Control-M, we do it through automation.

Control-M is deployed in my organization on-premises. It is easy to integrate Control-M with other technologies. We have added AWS cloud as of now, and we are trying to move all of the infrastructure jobs to the cloud.

Control-M has improved the way my organization functions by mainly automating all the backups and database jobs that we used to do manually. The implementation of Control-M has had a great impact on business-critical applications as it provides clear monitoring and troubleshooting for business-critical jobs within the SLA.

Everything is good regarding improvements for Control-M. There is no need for additional improvements.

I have been working in my current field for seven months.

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is great.

The customer support is good. My experience with Control-M's customer support was good, and I would say it was helpful and responsive.

I previously used Autosys. Before using Control-M, my organization used Stonebranch because it was what we relied on for job scheduling and automation. I switched from Stonebranch to Control-M because it was hard to understand, the scheduling was difficult, and it had fewer integration options with technologies.

We directly chose Control-M without evaluating other options.

I have seen a return on investment with Control-M as we need fewer employees because it is really automated.

I think the forecast is a feature to consider. I assess Control-M for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows primarily through the Control-M GUI. The accuracy and reliability of Control-M's AI output are ninety percent accurate and reliable. My advice to others looking into using Control-M is to have it in their organization. I find this interview good and do not think any changes are needed for the future. I would rate Control-M a ten out of ten.