Control-M Reviews

Control-M is used for MFT service MFT features in daily work because files are transferred from one server to the target, and it is used primarily for integration between two systems. It is also used for scheduling and managing SAP jobs.

One workflow managed with Control-M currently involves encrypting files and transferring them to the bank, where the source system is encrypted and the encrypted file is transferred, which is easier to analyze and prevents breaches of flat files.

Control-M is used for MFT-based managed file transfers across different businesses globally, and the features provided by MFT in Control-M are believed to be the best for transferring files between on-premise and cloud systems.

Approximately 20 to 30 people use Control-M in the organization, performing various roles such as job configuration, administration, and usage for MFT and SAP jobs.

Control-M usage is being increased and businesses globally are being engaged to expand its implementation.

The favorite feature of Control-M is MFT manage file transfer, which is easy to integrate with other systems. It is used daily, and the API is utilized for admin activities and triggering Control-M jobs.

The API in Control-M helps automate tasks, such as creating jobs automatically using code in Visual Studio, enabling workload policies, job creation, and sharing the API swagger with the business to trigger Control-M jobs.

Control-M is a good tool with the best features for SAP scheduling.

Control-M has positively impacted Saint-Gobain by reducing manual work in file transfers, allowing automation of tasks, improvement of SLA, and enhancement of daily work and workload.

Control-M has improved organizational functionality by providing one platform to monitor jobs easily and access detailed logs to track SAP and MFT jobs with end-to-end visibility of job dependencies.

One area for improvement in Control-M is the ability to encrypt and decrypt files without needing to install an agent on the other side, and better customization options for SharePoint access in line with Saint-Gobain policy would be appreciated.

DevOps integration into Control-M needs to be explored more, as it is currently not being used in the organization but the potential benefits are evident.

I have been working in my current field for almost 11 years.

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is good.

Customer support for Control-M is excellent, and that aspect is greatly appreciated.

Previously, scripting was used for file transfers, which did not allow proper monitoring, leading to the switch to Control-M for both file transfers and SAP.

Other options were not evaluated before choosing Control-M because its features and functionalities were recognized in advance.

Before Control-M, scripts had to be created manually for file transfers, which took a significant amount of time. With Control-M, jobs are simply set up through drag and drop, which has reduced effort significantly.

Control-M is used for MFT-based managed file transfers across different businesses globally, and the features provided by MFT in Control-M are believed to be the best for transferring files between on-premise and cloud systems.

Although specific data is not available, Control-M has saved time in future implementations of end-to-end flows, making monitoring easier.

Control-M pricing is good, though it is somewhat expensive; still, it offers great features.

Other options were not evaluated before choosing Control-M because its features and functionalities were recognized in advance.

I advise others looking into using Control-M to experience its ease of monitoring jobs on a single user-friendly platform, streamlining job creation and monitoring.

The biggest lesson learned from using Control-M is that it reduces manual effort and increases productivity.

Control-M is effective for scheduling, managing, and monitoring workflows, and it is crucial for DevOps initiatives as it provides a single platform for monitoring related jobs, helping to reduce SLAs.

Control-M is good for my needs, and I would rate this review as a five out of five.

I work as a Control-M administrator in my current organization where I manage jobs, monitor jobs, and schedule jobs. As a specific example, I handle file watcher jobs and OS jobs. Regarding my main use case for Control-M, we have recently worked on the CV project where we migrated our jobs to the OCM.

Control-M offers workload automation, which means we do not have to perform it manually all the time.

I find it valuable that we can provide access to users, and we are managing access within Control-M.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization as users, including the developer team and infra team, are coming to us to schedule jobs, and we are delivering jobs on time, which is really impactful.

Control-M helps deliver jobs on time by requiring us to put the start time of 22:00 CET when scheduling jobs that need to run at that time.

Control-M can be improved with features using Airflow or AWS in Control-M modeling, and we can use AI-generated Control-M in the future, as AI is becoming prevalent worldwide.

Control-M can be enhanced with a chatbot so that new joiners can use it for their questions on how to schedule jobs or set the timer calendar in Control-M, leveraging AI for this purpose.

Regarding Control-M's AI capabilities, I think security is crucial.

I have almost 3.10 years of experience in this company.

Control-M is stable.

For Control-M's scalability, we are using it as control resources, where some jobs run simultaneously, allowing us to utilize control resources efficiently.

Control-M provides excellent customer support as it supports all teams, including the backup teams, middleware teams, and all other teams to process their transactions.

It is easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for our DataOps and DevOps processes as things change, making implementation straightforward.

I have seen a return on investment in terms of time saved.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was great, as I have almost three years of experience in forecasting, and we are implementing it in our organization as well.

I evaluated other options before choosing Control-M.

Control-M helps me build, schedule, manage, and monitor my production workflows effectively, and this capability is important for my data operations and DevOps work.

Control-M is currently used extensively in my organization, and we have plans to increase its usage as we are getting new projects; AI is coming into the picture, and we are migrating our tool to Airflow.

Almost 10,000 plus users are using Control-M.

I would advise others looking into using Control-M to realize that it is a great tool which provides automation, eliminating the need to run jobs manually. I would rate this product a 9 out of 10.

Control-M is a scheduling software for scheduling jobs, and I have been using it for four to six years.

The best feature of Control-M is that it is a SAP module we use to schedule jobs in SAP for the delivery of goods, and mainly it's time-oriented. Time-oriented features and whatever reports we can fetch are very easy in Control-M.

It is easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for DataOps and DevOps. Currently, our next project is underway regarding the integration.

Control-M supports DataOps and DevOps initiatives by enabling us to update batches we get from the BMC tool, and we are currently using both for development and testing purposes. I hope it will be beneficial for us moving forward. If we implement a DevOps project in our application, it will save significant time by reducing human intervention as jobs will be scheduled automatically.

Currently, the solution saves us around 15 to 20% time during the primary phase.

Regarding areas for improvement, there are some additional features that you must give concerning the available features. The job scheduling time is a little bit consuming, and it should be simplified into very straightforward steps, such as a web-based application for all the scheduling jobs, as this would be helpful.

There are a few bugs I found while implementing Control-M, which are minor issues. We can minimize those bugs, such as applications not running at scheduled times. If there's a time schedule, we might get a report with logs, and 98% of the time it runs on time, with only 2% being slightly problematic regarding job execution.

Regarding stability, Control-M application is stable, and there is no second thought on this. If any error arises from a job that hasn't run, we simply need to address that issue. I rate its stability as eight.

I rate scalability as eight.

I rate the support for the solution as a seven, around 7 to 8, specifically a 7.5.

I have not yet migrated from Broadcom or Redwood or any similar solutions, but we have conducted workshops and other preparations for that.

It is simple to integrate Control-M, particularly in the cloud. We need to have the host or an agent to run commands with the application name, and it is comparatively easy when compared to others.

It's not cheap; it's a little bit costlier compared to others due to database processing and finishing jobs, which have some dependencies, so I don't think it's cheaper.

Control-M, which is the BMC workload automation tool, is mainly used for scheduling. When we integrate Control-M into a SAP basis, we can automatically fetch records. We have to schedule and run jobs at a particular time, going through phases such as initial phase, build phase, and delivery phase. In that process, we handle job scheduling, workload management, creating OS and file transfer of database jobs, and reporting and configuration management involving automation capabilities.

Currently, our client is using BMC's Control-M software, so we must go as per the client's requirements. We are not in a position to decide whether we can proceed with it or not because the client uses Control-M for batch scheduling.

I definitely recommend BMC; Control-M is excellent for handling very large batch scheduling jobs. We have many jobs to complete in our daily activities, and this is one of the best tools. I would also recommend it to my partners for different clients who need batch scheduling; Control-M is a very good tool or application.

Primarily for email and SNMP, as well as monitoring tools, we use Control-M compared to other solutions or vendors. I would rate this product an overall eight out of ten.

My main use case for Control-M is job orchestration throughout the company. A specific example of how I use Control-M for job orchestration in my organization is the management and coordination of the sequence of business-critical jobs that need to be run on a regular basis.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization by simplifying the existing routine and making it very easy to manage jobs. Control-M has saved time, reduced errors, and provided other measurable benefits, especially in terms of time when a business customer requires a new job flow, as it is very easy to customize and implement. I believe time saving is the best output we have achieved now.

The best features Control-M offers are that it is SaaS and very easy to manage. It has a very user-friendly interface, is very easy to customize, and allows me to check the result of the jobs' outcome.

The user interface stands out to me because it is specifically designed for the particular user's needs, making it not so complicated to change or update anything within the system.

As of now, we do not have any major requests, complications, or complaints about Control-M. Everything we have received from our internal clients can be implemented with existing tools and features, and if something new arises, the BMC team is putting it into backlog and providing us with a timeline for implementation, so I cannot say that something really critical exists right now that needs to be improved.

I have been working in my current field for more than fifteen years.

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is at a very high level.

If we are talking about direct support from BMC, it is quite good. I would rate the customer support an eight out of ten.

I previously used another solution, and we decided to replace it with Control-M because the strategic direction has changed.

I would say the pricing and setup process is quite straightforward.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Control-M is that it can be implemented with the right team in very fast and quick terms, given specific expertise.

Control-M has saved time, reduced errors, and provided other measurable benefits, especially in terms of time when a business customer requires a new job flow, as it is very easy to customize and implement. I believe time saving is the best output we have achieved now.

I would say the pricing and setup process is quite straightforward.

I previously used another solution, and we decided to replace it with Control-M because the strategic direction has changed.

We are working with the integration with Ansible, for instance, and with other platforms in order to increase our automation processes and simplify any manual routine work.

I would rate Control-M an eight out of ten because it is quite simple, easy to scale, understandable, and it is a friendly user platform.

I would rank Control-M's AI capabilities, particularly its governance and security, at a pretty high level. In terms of Control-M's AI capabilities, its accuracy and reliability of output are high standard; I would call this platform quite reliable compared to other systems.

Control-M is extensively used by my organization, we have thousands of jobs, and it definitely is one of our strategic directions.

I need to split the users into admin users and those who are requesting to update some jobs; there are dozens of them in each department.

I advise others looking into using Control-M to be very accurate and specific with the scope. The cloud provider we use for our hybrid deployment is open information that you can find easily on your own. My overall rating for Control-M is an eight out of ten.

I primarily use Control-M for scheduling workload automation to ensure that jobs and schedules run according to the specified time and dependencies across different environments including Windows, UNIX, and SAP.

Multiple servers previously required jobs to run sequentially on a manual basis. Control-M provided a user interface where agents could be installed to run jobs sequentially rather than manually. Once the Windows job completed, the UNIX job ran, followed by the SAP job, and then the Windows job ran again.

Control-M's pipeline integrations are a valuable tool that is utilized on a daily basis.

Control-M's best features are the ease of scheduling, the user interface, and the ability to integrate with numerous tools.

The user interface is intuitive and the primary integration utilized is ServiceNow, which helps create incidents and establish a data pipeline between ServiceNow and Control-M.

Control-M has ensured that schedules and job batches run on time with no organizational impact or delays, including critical processes such as payroll.

Since implementing Control-M, a significant reduction has been noticed in billing process times. Billing processes that previously took approximately two hours are now completed within one hour, resulting in substantial savings of full-time equivalents.

Control-M pricing is on the higher end, and if the cost could be reduced, it would be beneficial.

I have been using Control-M for around two years.

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is strong, and the support for scaling is also strong. Scalability has not been an issue.

Support for Control-M is excellent.

IBM Tivoli was used previously before switching to Control-M, which provided a better solution and superior integration capabilities.

The deployment of Control-M took three months.

Two hundred fifty staff are required for deployment and maintenance, divided into teams at levels L1, L2, and L3. Some team members are responsible for monitoring, some for creation of new jobs, and others manage the administrative tasks of the controller.

A return on investment has been achieved. After deployment and product stabilization, staffing was reduced from thirty full-time equivalents to twenty full-time equivalents, resulting in a significant reduction. Additionally, because jobs have been streamlined, many manual processes have been automated, resulting in savings of approximately five hundred thousand pounds.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Control-M are good.

Other options were evaluated before choosing Control-M, including Redwood RunMyJobs.

Control-M support is excellent and the user interface is outstanding. For those seeking a stable and dominant tool in the market for scheduling and workload automation, Control-M is the recommended choice. This review has been given a rating of nine out of ten.

Control-M serves as our main business use case for business application batch job scheduling. Control-M is not a user-interacted system; it is a batch scheduling system where our applications interact with Control-M rather than users. We do not use Control-M as a DevOps tool, but we utilize it for all our applications, which are batch-based applications. Control-M orchestrates workloads across multiple environments. Control-M is handling complex data pipelines and analytics processes effectively.

The features of Control-M that I prefer most are Control-M/EM, Control-M/Server, and Control-M/Agent, which make up the Control-M batch scheduling system.

Control-M is easy to use because our key application is a batch-based application, so Control-M performs the job for us by handling all the automation and related tasks.

The measurable benefits my company has achieved with Control-M include improved SLA and reduced errors, as manual batch job runs lead to numerous errors and failure to meet the SLA.

Since we have been using Control-M from day one for batch scheduling, we do not have a percentage showing improvement because we have not used manual scheduling at all.

Regarding AI or automation, we would appreciate the opportunity to explore the AI functionalities because the application we are currently using does not support AI. It would be beneficial in the future if Control-M were to have AI capabilities.

I have been using Control-M for around eighteen years.

Control-M is a stable product stability-wise, and we do not encounter many issues. The only problem occurred when we upgraded to the latest version, which resulted in CPU spikes in Java, and this was resolved with support and a patch.

The support for that issue was adequate. We called support and eventually received a solution after reaching out multiple times, and the issue is now fixed.

Control-M's scalability is adequate. It is a scalable product, and we have not over-engineered it, so it meets our business needs.

We provide direct feedback to our support partner for Control-M, so nothing comes to mind at the moment. I consider the current support to be adequate.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate customer service and technical support as seven. A score of seven is decent enough. I am not saying Control-M support is a perfect ten, but I consider seven to be a good rating.

Positive

It has been a long time since we looked at other solutions, so I do not remember what we considered.

We do not handle Control-M deployment ourselves. We simply install it, and it is a stable environment, so we do not keep deploying it regularly.

BMC's service team supports our deployment and migration strategy well, with professional service and good support during our recent upgrade.

The biggest return on investment when using Control-M is ensuring that all batch jobs for our business applications meet the agreed SLA, which justifies our investment since we use this tool for a critical application.

Control-M is not inexpensive. Looking at other tools in the market, they are offering competitive prices, but Control-M, as a BMC product, is definitely not inexpensive, and BMC could improve their pricing strategy.

We have looked at other products when considering switching, but I cannot name them. I do not see a major difference between the products we looked at while considering Control-M. Pricing-wise, the other products were less expensive.

I would rate Control-M as a seven as a product. My advice to other companies considering Control-M is based on all our lessons learned, especially regarding issues we encountered during migration and implementation, which should be taken into account. I have assigned a review rating of seven to Control-M.

Control-M provides automation workflows for the telecom environment. A specific example of how I use Control-M to automate workflows in my telecom environment includes application workflows such as billing, billing systems, infra setup, backup, storage, and requests, all of which are taken care of by Control-M.

With the 9.21 version of Control-M, I find quite good features with MFT and API integrations, as well as Azure and Kubernetes.

MFT has made the biggest difference for my team; it has been the main feature we are using as of now, with a lot of configurations with managed file transfer in place.

Having a secure file transfer is very crucial in today's world of cyber security threats; that is the additional part or the best functionality available with Control-M.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization by providing a platform to automate the workflows in complex environments while having data security in place, which has really helped the organization grow positively.

For Control-M to improve, the vendor support can be more improvised. If a solution is not existing, providing a patch for a vulnerability would be more helpful than always stating to move on to the higher version of the application.

I have been using Control-M for the past 13 years.

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is good.

Customer support is good.

We migrated from Autosys, CA Autosys to Control-M.

We switched to Control-M from Autosys because Control-M has better integration options and the GUI is far better.

My deployment took place around 14 years ago; it is a very old deployment that we are using, and we have been upgrading the system now and then.

The migration was smooth, so we were able to migrate on time and on budget without any disruptions.

We have around 1600 Control-M users in our organization for our particular license; the users vary from first level support to monitor jobs, some application users with browse access, and a few admin users.

A part of the admin team of Control-M, around 25 members, takes care of deployment and maintenance.

I do not have experience with the usage and investment calculations myself; however, discussing benefits, the employee count is reduced, and we can achieve quite a lot of FTE saving by having Control-M integrated.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing indicates that the pricing is on the higher side with respect to the license, but overall the tool is good.

We finalized Control-M without evaluating other options.

The biggest lesson I think I have learned from using Control-M is that the technology is vast, and we need to keep exploring, learning, and integrating more to ease out our life.

Control-M is used widely in our global environment; we have a licensing of around 75K, and currently, we do not plan to increase the usage.

I assess Control-M as a good tool for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows; it is important for my DataOps and DevOps initiatives, but I have not explored DevOps deeply.

I assess Control-M as a good platform tool for modernizing and transforming our business; it removes human dependencies for mundane tasks and eases out the workload, which is easily possible with Control-M.

It is very crucial to free up IT personnel to focus on essential operations; this allows them to focus on the latest technologies and also implement POCs for the latest technology integrated with Control-M, which ultimately helps optimize the complete workflows.

I would advise others looking into using Control-M to explore Control-M. I rate this product an 8 out of 10.

My main use case for Control-M is that my team is in charge of all the alerting and monitoring, as well as the scheduling and creation of all schedules within Control-M.

The scheduling my team creates with Control-M serves all the IT audience within the company, so we have a mix of everything. Any need from developers, database administrators, or anyone from the infrastructure or development teams is handled, such as transferring files or updating databases. We deal with all requests within the company related to scheduling.

Within my team, we have around 10 people using Control-M who are focused on monitoring and reacting to alerts, as well as creating all schedules and doing all scheduling work. Beyond that, we have developers, DBAs, and others who check Control-M to review the performance of their jobs and logs. We have around 50 people total, though I don't know the exact number.

The best features Control-M offers are the stability and ease of use.

The interface of Control-M is easy to use and it is a very stable and reliable application. Control-M has a very high positive impact on my organization as it is a reliable tool that is very stable. We usually don't have issues related to the application itself, so there is a very high impact.

Control-M can be improved by including more options for automating things from an alerting handling perspective.

Reporting features are a field that we would like to have more statistics about, including jobs, usage, and errors. We definitely would also like to have more options to integrate Control-M with other applications such as JSM, ServiceNow, OmniCenter, or other monitoring tools that can provide information from Control-M. There is always room for improvement for any application.

It is easy in theory, but I find it challenging to integrate Control-M with technologies for my data ops and DevOps processes as changes occur. There have been a few efforts to integrate Control-M with other applications like Ansible, JSM, and OmniCenter, and it has been very challenging. From a DevOps perspective, I am not aware of any efforts, so I don't have information about that. However, related to the ones that I mentioned, it has been very challenging because there are not many options to integrate with Control-M. I'm not sure if this is due to a lack of training or application knowledge from our side or if it is something that the application itself is not providing.

I have been in my current field for 20 years.

Control-M is stable.

Its scalability is challenging.

Control-M has very good customer support.

We don't have a metric for return on investment from a Control-M perspective. We are expecting to see some of that if at some point Control-M starts integrating AI features and AI functions into the application.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Control-M is the importance of having a reliable and stable scheduler.

My advice for others looking into using Control-M is that training is key to learning how Control-M works behind the scenes and in the scheduling part. I also advise looking for stability and implementing the HA environment.

I would rate Control-M an eight on a scale of one to ten.

Like any other batch scheduler, Control-M is what we're really using for the various workflows that we have to either do on a daily or hourly or whatever basis. We run them all through there.

I've worked with other ones, and I think the certain simplicity to how Control-M lets you set up a schedule or workflow is excellent. It's very easy to build everything together.

Most of my complaints have ever been with support for Control-M, not with the product itself. I can't really think of anything that I strongly dislike about the product.

Sometimes my gripes with the support relate to them being a little slow to get back on either a query or a problem issue. That's my biggest gripe on the support side. There are some people in the support area that are fantastic, and then there are others that feel like I'm being pushed off to the side. I don't know what's going on in the back shop, so I can't say for certain.

I'm currently fighting with support on one issue right now with Control-M, but it's not the overall product, it's just one sub-piece that's being problematic. It's the SAP interface with Control-M.

My usage has definitely been more than ten years. I go back to release three or something.

I've never really seen much of a problem with scalability for Control-M. I'm sure there is an upper limit to how many agents and how many jobs you could run, but I haven't hit that yet. Where I am right now, we load probably about three thousand jobs a day, but we run a lot more than that because you can load a job and run it hundreds of times.

I'm going to give Control-M's support an eight on the scale from one to ten, with ten being the highest. That rating is mostly because of the reasons I've already mentioned.

I've used plenty of alternatives for Control-M in the past. Though some of them don't exist anymore or they probably still do. One of my former employers was a big CA-7 shop on the mainframe side, and on the distributed side, I used the IBM tool Workload Scheduler.

The setup for Control-M is not horrible. Once you get the server built out correctly initially, it installs relatively easily. There are some things in the update format that I don't favor. They used to have an update and migrate model, which would allow you to move from one system to a new system if you needed to upgrade your operating system or switch to a different platform. Going from Windows to Linux, or from SUSE Linux to RHEL Linux was easy to do. That migrate model was very good, but they went to an upgrade in place model. You can't do it that easily anymore because what you have to do is upgrade in place where you are and then build a new box and then move the data over, which is a bit of a pain. It was one-stop shopping previously. They stopped that at version 9.18.

The implementation is handled by me and maybe one other person who are specifically doing the deployment and maintenance of Control-M.

I don't really have any thoughts about the pricing for Control-M. I don't deal with that, or I haven't in a very long time. I know one of the pricing models is based on workload, specifically how many tasks you load in a day. I don't know if there are any other pricing models other than that. That's the only one I'm familiar with.

Control-M does require some maintenance on your end, as with any software. There are fix packs released or patches, and you need to be aware of that. BMC is very good about notifying you when they post out new patches or fix packs. It usually requires a downtime, but it's a very short downtime. It takes longer to take the product down than to apply the patch for Control-M. You have all the processes to shut down, apply the patch, and bring them all back up, and the up and down takes longer than the actual patch application sometimes. I would rate this review a nine out of ten.

Control-M is used for scheduling, specifically scheduling application jobs. We have always been using Control-M, as we inherited it. We work with all technologies within the business using Control-M, including WebMethods, Axway, and IBM MQ. In the managed file transfer space, using Control-M, I find that it is not as user-friendly as other products available for MFT.

The best features in Control-M are its ease of use and robustness; it is very feature-rich, which is what we use it for—scheduling. It is easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for our DataOps and DevOps processes as things change. The integration aspects of Control-M are out of the box, so they are straightforward to use. From using Control-M, I have seen improvements as they grow with the versions; with the newer versions come enhanced functionalities, such as the latest version allowing access through a web GUI instead of the client GUI that you have to install, which is quite helpful because you can access it from anywhere.

We are not on the latest version of Control-M; we currently have version 20 and 21.

I have been using Control-M for 10 years.

Regarding stability with Control-M, I would rate it nine out of ten for downtime, bugs, and glitches.

Control-M is very scalable, and I would rate it a nine.

I would rate the vendor's technical support for Control-M as a nine.

Positive

We have tried to look at other products, but there is no other product out there that does what it needs to do as Control-M does, which is why it is still around—it simply does what it needs to do.

The deployment of Control-M was quite complex to get in, but once it is in, it does what it needs to do. It took weeks to get Control-M deployed.

Control-M requires maintenance from our end, as we have to perform patching whenever needed, but that does not happen very often—probably once a quarter. Patching for Control-M is easy.

I have definitely seen a return on investment with Control-M in terms of time and resources, but I cannot speak to the financial aspect—I do not know. I would estimate that I have saved perhaps 20% to 30% on time and resources using Control-M.

From what I know about pricing, I would probably put Control-M in the expensive category, but you do pay for what you get; you are paying for a premium product.

We looked at AWS products for scheduling with Control-M; I cannot remember the actual name of the scheduling tool at AWS, but it is nowhere near as advanced as what we need.

Approximately 100 users work with Control-M. They are not all Australia-based; some users are from India, so we have offshore resources as well. My relationship with BMC is both transformative and transactional. Regarding the transformative aspect, I have impressions of BMC as both because we partner with them; we might not be strategic partners, but we value their advice all the time—not just product advice, but sales as well. We consider ourselves a partner with the vendor, but I do not know if we are officially a signed partner; we are a partner at the base level. When I refer to our relationship with the vendor, we are considered an entry level partner; we are not a reseller, so we cannot resell their products, but we are partners and we consult while using their products internally and with customers to support their customer base. Our clients are generally enterprise businesses. I would recommend Control-M to other users; I know they are going all web-based, which they believe is the best way to go, but I can tell you that everybody I have spoken to has said the contrary—they actually prefer the client GUI that you can install, which is easier to use and more feature-rich, while the web GUI is very hard and difficult to navigate through. I have rated this review a nine out of ten overall.