Control-M Reviews

I have several use cases for Control-M. I have been implementing Control-M for a long time in several enterprises in Brazil, and then five years ago I moved to the US. I started working here in the US as well. I have several use cases for insurance companies and bank companies in Brazil, and currently, I am working with Bank Charles Schwab using this tool to transfer internal files between systems and applications.

We also have user-defined transfers to move files to business partners. Overall, I have been using this solution for 17 years and have many use cases to speak of.

When I joined Bank Charles Schwab, Control-M was already implemented, but I also work on implementing Control-M from scratch.

Recently, I did an integration involving Control-M with Pentaho and Power BI. Even though Control-M did not have the plugin for Pentaho, I managed to run a data pipeline using scripts and successfully integrate it into Power BI dashboards.

In general, the ability to check all your processes in a unified view that Control-M provides is what I appreciate the most about it.

Control-M helps to integrate processes across various applications in big enterprises, making it significantly easier since you have a single point of control and can see failures and impacts on the flow.

Now, with the new plugins that they launch every month, it is easy to integrate with technologies for my DataOps and DevOps processes.

I think they are going in the direction of managing data that Control-M orchestrates. Currently, it is hard to get data from the process that Control-M is processing.

The ease of deploying Control-M depends on the architecture chosen, as some configurations can require more setup.

I have been working with Control-M for 17 years overall in my career.

In terms of scalability, I think it is good. I have seen effective escalation when necessary during issue resolution.

I have contacted BMC technical support, especially when I cannot solve certain issues myself, but I have a good handle on it due to my long experience.

The quality of support is fast during production emergencies, but it can take longer when issues are not critical, with interactions sometimes taking several days.

They have limited support for native language issues, which can create challenges for non-English speakers.

Usually, I handle the deployment myself, but I need a team to implement large numbers of jobs after the deployment.

I do not have experience using alternatives to Control-M, as I was directly presented with Control-M when I started working with workload automation.

Control-M tends to be the most expensive compared to other competitors. However, I believe it is worth the price since it delivers the most.

It requires some maintenance on my end occasionally, especially when compliance or security updates are needed.

Mostly, customers need to perform file transfers, which is a main use case for many customers. Many customers I worked with use various kinds of file transfers, and I use BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for this purpose.

This solution affects our organization's business modernization initiatives as BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer can remove silos. When you don't have an orchestration product, many departments perform tasks in an isolated way. With our orchestration, I can integrate legacy assets with modern assets. Technology is always reinvented, so you have to handle backward technology and gain business advantages when you use new technologies. Using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for orchestration is the best definition for this.

I use BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer as a core feature. The best features with MFT are accurate file transfer and visibility for file transfers. 

Regarding the usability of MFT, it is very easy and powerful to use. 

BMC has made some improvements for this product. For example, I can use MFT inside my company and then use MFT Enterprise to exchange files with external users. 

I have noticed more features and enhancements for this product in the latest releases. BMC Control-M's Application Workflow Orchestration is very advanced. 

While I am unsure if BMC is a leader in the Gartner Magic Quadrant, they have been working in this area for many years and have improved their product.

The solution has helped reduce IT operation costs.

BMC is already improving in artificial intelligence and integration with cloud. AI can improve and is definitely an area where BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer continues to enhance.

I have good feedback for the deployment because when customers show challenges, we can perform a smooth deployment for this solution.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer helps to reduce costs. When you have control of your entire production, you can be proactive and control your SLAs. You can save substantial money just by having control of everything. 

It saves significant time. Here is one use case: when you don't have visibility of your infrastructure, you have a misconception that everything is fine, however, when you discover that some processes have not been handled properly, you will discover this too late. When you discover something is late, you will lose money and time. However, when you have everything under control with BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer, you can be proactive and prevent scenarios where you lose money and time because time is money. 

This is the main benefit; when you have everything under control, it prevents you from losing money and time.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this solution a ten.

I have been working with Control-M for about six months as part of my role. During this time, I have mainly used it for monitoring and managing batch jobs and automated workflows.

Our main use case for Control-M is managing and monitoring batch workflows across different systems. We use it to schedule jobs that run scripts, database processes, and ETL-related tasks. We make sure they execute in the correct order based on dependencies. On a daily basis, I mostly work with monitoring job runs, checking job statuses, and troubleshooting failures when a job does not complete successfully. We also review logs, rerun jobs when needed, and make sure the workflows complete within the expected time windows. Control-M helps centralize all this so we can track and manage automation more efficiently instead of handling tasks manually.

One of the examples for centralized monitoring in Control-M is the ability to view the status of all the scheduled jobs from a single dashboard. Instead of checking multiple systems individually, we can see whether jobs are running, completed successfully, or failed in one place. For example, if a job that runs a database script fails during the night schedule, we can quickly identify the failure from the monitoring interface, review the logs, and rerun the job if needed. This helps the team respond faster and keep the workflow running smoothly.

One of the best features of Control-M is its ability to manage complex job scheduling and dependencies across different systems from a single platform. It makes it much easier to automate workflows and monitor job execution in real-time. The centralized monitoring and alerting help us quickly identify failures and take action, which improves reliability and reduces manual effort.

Control-M has had a positive impact by improving the automation and reliability in our batch processing workflows. It helps ensure that jobs run in the correct sequence and reduces the need for manual intervention. The monitoring and alerting features have also made it easier to detect failures early and resolve issues quickly, so it helps keep our scheduled processes running smoothly.

One area that could be improved is the user interface. While the platform is very powerful, the UI can sometimes feel complex for new users, and it may take time to become familiar with all the features. Improving it and making the navigation more intuitive would help teams adopt it more quickly.

Another improvement could be simplifying the initial setup configuration process for organizations that are implementing Control-M for the first time.

I have been employed for almost four years, approximately three years and ten months.

Control-M is definitely stable. In my experience, once workflows and jobs are properly configured, it runs reliably and handles scheduled processes consistently. Most issues we encountered are usually related to the jobs themselves rather than the platform, and the monitoring tool helps identify and resolve them quickly.

Control-M is quite scalable in my experience. It can handle a large number of jobs and workflows across different systems without major performance issues. As the workload grows, it is possible to expand the environment and manage additional processes while still maintaining centralized monitoring and control.

Customer support has generally been good. The support team is responsive and provides helpful guidance when issues arise. The documentation and knowledge base resources are also useful for troubleshooting common problems.

Before using Control-M, some workflows were handled through basic scheduling tools and manual scripts. Moving to Control-M helped centralize job scheduling and monitoring, making it easier to manage dependencies and automate processes more reliably.

The biggest lesson I learned while working with Control-M is the importance of properly defining job dependencies and workflows during the initial setup. When dependencies are clearly configured, the automation runs smoothly and requires less manual intervention. It has also highlighted how valuable centralized monitoring is because it allows teams to quickly identify and resolve issues before they impact downstream processes.

We are just a user.

For return on investment, we have experienced improved automation and reduced manual effort. In terms of operational efficiency, automation through Control-M has reduced manual overhead by around twenty to thirty percent, especially for routine batch job monitoring and scheduled tasks.

I have no idea how the pricing, setup, and cost licensing is done. It is done by the finance department.

We saw the working methodology of Control-M, how batch jobs are handled, and how the automation works, so we just went for Control-M.

With job scheduling and workflow automation, this automation has increased the scheduling time by fifty percent. The monitoring task has been reduced by twenty to thirty percent. Instead of going on multiple tabs, we can view it at once. Workflow management through the technologies is a bit of a complex task. As we have used this, we can implement it. For new users, it might be a bit complex.

Currently, we have been using this for the past six months. We are seeing good, positive results. The automation workflow is also good, and the batch scheduling jobs are definitely good. We will still want to try it on different platforms and then decide on any further usage or increase in usage of Control-M.

In production, this workflow is mainly through the monitoring and reporting features in Control-M. We check the job status to make sure the scheduled process completes successfully within the expected time window. If the job fails or is delayed, we review the logs again, analyze the dependency chain, and rerun or troubleshoot the job if needed. This helps ensure that the overall production workflow continues without impacting downstream processes.

One piece of advice I would give is to spend time planning the job dependencies and workflows carefully during the initial stages. If the workflow is well-structured, Control-M can automate processes very efficiently and reduce manual intervention repeatedly.

Overall, Control-M has been a reliable solution for managing automated workflows and scheduled jobs. It provides good visibility into job execution and helps teams maintain operational stability. I gave Control-M a rating of eight because it is a very reliable solution for scheduling jobs and automating workflows, and it helps me manage complex job dependencies and provides good monitoring capabilities, which makes it easier to track and troubleshoot batch processing. The reason I did not rate it higher is that the interface can feel complex for new users, and the initial setup and learning curve could be improved. With some improvements to the user interface and onboarding experience for new users, it could become even more effective.

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.

Neutral

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.

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.

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.

We have several SAP systems such as IBP, S4HANA, SolMan, etc. By implementing Helix Control-M, we wanted a tool that monitors different activities on these platforms and launches jobs.

Each company has a different number of jobs. We have thousands of jobs, but we have selected the most critical jobs of the company that normally run in the early morning. We wanted a platform that allows us to launch the job, for example, from point A until it finishes, and then there is also the possibility of being able to launch another job from another tool, which could be a SaaS tool, such as IBP so that several jobs can be executed and finished in parallel. If there is a failure in the system, we send an email, and for much more important things, generate a ticket in a tool called SolMan so that the support team can attend to the case that has arisen due to the failure of a job.

All those human errors that we were facing did not occur again. All these processes are critical for the company. We have implemented 22 processes. One of the processes starts at eleven at night. The process runs in S4HANA. It sends data to IBP, and IBP makes an optimizer and then it becomes a request that specifies the national transfers of the products that are going to be distributed. In other words, these are requests that indicate how many products should be sent from one point to another point for the customer at a national level. At six in the morning, another team, which is the distribution team, waits for this request to assemble the trucks and get them ready to leave. If they do not have this request, the trucks will remain stationary. By having the trucks stopped, there is no distribution, so there can be a loss of sales. There can be a drop in stock. You accumulate inventory in the warehouse because the plant continues producing, but where are you going to put the new products? There are a series of consequences that can cause the process to fail because we did not have immediate action to create that request. This tool has helped us positively impact the company's processes. We could get its benefits immediately after the implementation.

Helix Control-M’s ability to build, schedule, manage, and monitor application and data workflows in production is good. When we went live and throughout the first stage of the project, I thought it was great because we received full support. Now that we have the tool live, I have presented more cases, and I feel that they are a little slower. I have to try harder to get their attention.

Helix Control-M has affected our ability to orchestrate data pipelines in production. It has been a great benefit. Little by little, users' trust is increasing. When there is just one small failure, they usually stop believing in the tool. With a more solid tool like this, we have fewer errors, which means more trust of the users.

Helix Control-M has given our company’s business users visibility and control over their jobs and freed up IT personnel for other tasks. It has freed us up a lot because previously, IT used to coordinate meetings with the company that gave us the manual service. We had to meet and discuss failures and issues, but we no longer have these meetings because that third-party company is no longer there. We replaced them with this solution, and it has freed up a few hours. Being able to free up the company's IT team is important because we have so many issues to deal with. Nowadays, technology and innovation are in full swing, and users are constantly asking for new things, so the more we focus on those things, the better.

Helix Control-M has affected collaboration between IT and our business users. Previously, our business users only complained about process failures, and now they themselves can reprogram. Before Helix Control-M, we had to send emails with the reprogramming. Despite that, they did not do what we had specified in the email, so it was all a waste of time. We wasted time with the business, and we wasted time meeting with this company. In the end, they did not do what we had told them. Nowadays, the user interacts directly with the tool because they have access. They themselves can reprogram those processes. There is less need to have a meeting, and there is also a reduction in the email replies and forwards. We have reduced everything. They directly interact with the tool to launch and relaunch.

First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate.

The second valuable feature is that there have been many benefits, which we have been utilizing little by little.

The third valuable feature is that there is a good support team. They have solved things that other companies have not done. When it comes to IBP, because it is SaaS, it was not easy for our team, but we received good support. At first, there were also issues regarding the functionality of SolMan. We saw that it was not going to work, so we did not go live with that, but they told us that there was going to be a new version where the ticket would be generated almost automatically. Because they were releasing a technical issue that would allow us to generate a job automatically and generate a ticket in a simpler way, we waited for that upgrade to be released, and it indeed was like that. Such continuous support is very valuable because it is not a tool that does not progress. They are constantly releasing things and allowing it to grow and cover more functionalities.

There can be an improvement in the area of finance.

I contacted the BMC team here in Lima and mentioned the things that can be improved. For example, S4HANA jobs are something with which BMC has already worked in several companies. Whenever I pull an S4HANA job to the Helix Control-M tool, it pulls it naturally with all the steps. A job can have several steps, and in this case, it is very easy to control the steps taken. However, in the case of the SaaS IBP tool, it can pull the job but cannot identify the steps. So, when I want to take an action in a step, I have to split the job. We are having to work longer because we have to split the jobs from, for example, 52 steps to 12, depending on where I want it to have an action. We would like the tool to be able to identify the steps so that we are not continually splitting them as it generates more executions for me.

The other improvement is that in, for example, S4HANA jobs, when the job fails, you have the status of the job. It recognizes them perfectly. In the case of IBP, it also has status but at a more minimal level. Sometimes the step fails, but the job does not fail. It ends with an error in a step without identifying it for me.

Another thing that we have asked to improve is that Helix Control-M can be integrated with more tools such as Odoo. Odoo is a tool for all these companies that are not with SAP. They use it as a small ERP to generate their sales. Odoo integration will help us receive inventory reports.

The communication and details related to the upgrades that are going to be happening also need improvement.

The implementation began in 2021 and went live in February 2022.

It is a powerful, stable tool.

I have had a very good impression. I have been to the events where BMC shows its new products. I see that there are more things that are going to help a lot. We will be able to get much more out of it.

Alicorp is at several locations and in several countries. These processes have only been launched here in Lima, Peru. They have been divided into the demand planning, distribution, production, and supply areas by the planning team, but it is only done by a team here in Lima. The result is at the national level, but the configuration made in the system is only done in Lima, Peru. Later, we will surely also move internationally.

We started with a small planning team that is gaining confidence in the tool, and the next stage is to cover more areas of the business because currently, it is a small group with a small number of processes being executed. The idea is to make a massive change in the other areas as well, such as the finance department, and then the analytics department. This requires us to look at this implementation from various angles, so we can optimize the dissemination and execute it massively. Before taking that step, we wanted to be in a solid position with the team that is working on Helix Control-M. We wanted to have confidence in what the tool does, and now that we reached that step, the next step is greater use.

Our first-level support is with the GrupoCONTEXT team. They have the knowledge for all cases. There have only been 2 or 3 times where they did not know about the issue and involved BMC. There have only been 3 complex events. There have not been more complex issues. Normally, there are problems when maintenance and upgrades are carried out because sometimes the system changes.

Positive

We previously executed this process manually. It was a third-party company that had 9 people in the early hours. They manually launched one job and then relaunched the other according to a document that we gave them. The document said what things should be done depending on the case that arose. The problem was that there was a lot of shift rotation. For example, if one job ended at 2:00 a.m., in theory, the other should start at 2:01 a.m., but it started at 2:10 or 2:20 a.m. It took 20 to 30 minutes. This time was wasted because the person was not there all the time monitoring. They either made a mistake in launching another job that was not the one we had indicated, or they simply did not launch, which was much worse. So, because of the shift rotation of people, since they were early morning jobs, we constantly had those problems. We had a loss of time, no precision, and a lot of human error.

I was involved in the process of evaluation and implementation, and now, I am also involved in monitoring the development.

Its implementation is among the simplest I have done. SAP tools are more complex. Helix Control-M was live within a short time. We configured it in 2-3 days. We tested it one day, and the next day, it could go live with a process right away.

Our implementation strategy was to divide the implementation into stages. We did it by area and configured the jobs. That was it. We had workshops to understand what the user wanted, and then we did configuration in the test environment to see that what they requested is actually what is being done and executed in that environment. We then moved that to production, so for each user group, we followed: demand, distribution, supply, and production. It was super simple.

In terms of maintenance, from time to time, they notify us that there are upgrades. We receive notifications about agent upgrades, tool upgrades, and some system maintenance. Because it is a SaaS, they tell us everything. We coordinate internally so that if there is a process that is running at that moment, that program is executed manually.

For the server and agent part, we have outsourced the maintenance to the CJG company. They are in charge of doing that maintenance. On the operations side, there is a person in charge. Every time something happens, he is in charge of the event.

For the integration, we received assistance from GrupoCONTEXT. They were in charge of doing all the configuration and programming.

From GrupoCONTEXT, there were two people with constant support from BMC. On our side, there was an architect and a few other people. All the suppliers were contacted so that they were present during configurations, integrations, and testing.

We have seen an ROI. In theory, this third year, we will recover what we invested. It has helped us replace the cost of human resources.

For this tool, as we made the three-year contract, the cost of the licenses is maintained. If we had to hire people for this work, we would have had to increase their salaries every year.

They are expensive. If we were a small company, it would be complicated because we have to have strong sales and operations to be able to afford a tool of this level. Being a large company, the cost-benefit is covered, but it is not within the level of cheap solutions.

The dilemma for us was whether it is worth paying for a monitoring tool or whether it is better to pay people for the work. Helix Control-M was more beneficial because we had problems with manual monitoring, and these problems were expensive.

I was in charge of evaluating all the tools. Because we already had SAP, I first evaluated the SAP tools, such as SAP PI/PO and SolMan. All the SAP tools do these functions. They do them well, but they have limitations. For example, in SolMan, you can monitor and do all the operations, but when it comes to IBP, which is SaaS, it does not work. It is better to not manipulate the programming settings. It is better to leave the standard programming settings because it is simpler.

I was also told to evaluate external tools, so I evaluated Helix Control-M and the IBM solution. Helix Control-M won there. It is the first time that we have used a tool for this type of control. Previously, this work was done manually by a team of people. We used the tools only when monitoring a single platform. For example, for S4HANA, we only used SolMan, but we wanted to integrate several systems and find a solution that does all the activities efficiently and safely.

I would advise you to challenge it. We made an assessment to challenge it to see that it covers all of our use cases and we can trust it. It is a solid tool. Go for it if you can afford it.

The most important lesson that I have learned from using this solution is to not be afraid of automation. Sometimes, because you have been working manually for many years, migrating everything to automatic processes is risky, but I learned to not be afraid of doing this.

In terms of the measurable business impact of Helix Control-M, we are working on that. I just had a meeting with the commercial team on the subject of the month-closing report process. Currently, the month closing process is 5 days, and they want to reduce it to 3, for example. What they have told me is that if orchestrated right, Helix Control-M could help reduce the process time. We are in the middle of the evaluation process to precisely take care of its business impacts. With the finance department, we are evaluating the possibility of reducing time.

Overall, I would rate Helix Control-M a 9 out of 10.

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.