Control-M Reviews

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.

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.

I have used Control-M for database, SAP, web services, and file transfers. Additionally, I use it for normal scripts.

We had a customer who was using cron jobs to handle their workflows. With cron jobs, they faced problems related to SLA. When something failed, it took them time to identify issues, and sometimes they missed incidents which resulted in P1 situations in production environments. They transitioned to Control-M based on its features related to SLA and workflow visibility, which significantly helped them.

The GUI is the best feature, along with the file transfer capabilities. These are the two main components I use on a daily basis. Through GUI or CCM, we get control of all the components, which I really appreciate. 

While I cannot specify exact business impact numbers, frequent P1 incidents in the production environment typically indicate monetary losses.

While it can be used for DevOps purposes, we haven't used it for that purpose.

Support is one aspect that they really need to improve. Though we receive support for current versions, the challenge arises when working in large organizations with legacy workflows or applications, typically 10 to 20% of the total. 

When these legacy environments have outdated OS and face production issues from a Control-M perspective, BMC support states it's not supported anymore. Recently, we needed documentation for an old component during a production issue, and their response was that they couldn't help as it wasn't supported. Documentation should be maintained for all versions since they provided the application.

I have a total experience of around 19 years, with approximately 13 or 14 years specifically with Control-M. I started with 6.4.

Control-M is pretty stable. There are occasional issues, yet nothing major, and most issues are not caused by the software itself.

In on-premises environments, scalability features are limited. Planning and resource allocation must be done at the start. If workflows increase from 1,000 to 10,000, redeployment of the application becomes necessary. Database and application node planning must account for anticipated workflow volumes from the beginning.

We have approximately 1,000 users.

Support is an area that requires significant improvement.

Positive

I haven't migrated from other solutions.

I have limited experience with TWS. The TWS version we used was primarily command-line based, and its GUI capabilities were not comparable to Control-M.

The deployment process is straightforward. The environment's complexity affects deployment time rather than the software itself. Basic DB and Linux box installation takes approximately a week. The planning phase for system connectivity and task execution locations requires additional time.

The system requires maintenance with patches released once or twice yearly.

We are implementing this as a customer.

I can provide a general perspective on ROI. Manual tasks require human effort and are prone to errors, which Control-M helps eliminate. However, I cannot provide specific ROI figures.

Control-M is expensive and not cheap at all.

I have conducted technical assessments for several market solutions, though not in great depth. We explored alternative solutions due to Control-M's high cost rather than its technical limitations. My assumption is that all current enterprise-level scheduling or workload automation software provides similar technical functionalities and features.

We're a customer.

I would recommend Control-M for its performance capabilities. While cost-cutting is prevalent everywhere and Control-M's cost is on the higher side, from a technical perspective, it ranks among the top three solutions. 

The review rating for Control-M is nine out of ten.

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 our primary workload scheduling software, and we aim to utilize it for linking applications, hardware, and data transfers. Ideally, it should be the core component of our architecture. While we have started to expand its use over the past couple of years, we are not fully there yet.

A significant portion of our incoming files is handled through Managed File Transfer (MFT) Enterprise, which is an extension of Control-M. We have been utilizing this solution increasingly for both external and internal file transfers. Additionally, we rely on Control-M to schedule SAP jobs, which is one of its key functionalities. We also schedule a substantial portion of our data warehouse production using Control-M. 

As a health insurance company, we have a main internal application that heavily depends on Control-M. For instance, many incoming files need to be decoded and processed for our internal application, followed by a job that transfers the data into our databases. We have recently begun to use Control-M for the maintenance of various databases, such as SAP HANA, Oracle, and Postgres. This aspect of our usage is constantly growing.

Another significant aspect of our workflow involves creating customized job types for our clients. For example, some files we receive are encoded and zipped, for which there is no default Control-M job. To address this, we frequently use the Application Integrator to provide additional functionalities not currently available in Control-M. This allows us to automate tasks that would otherwise require manual intervention, such as extracting contents from ZIP files.

We are also standardizing processes with Control-M, providing standard job types for all our customers. This includes file renaming, combining files, or separating them based on specific application types. For instance, we receive files that contain multiple text files, which we may need to split or combine into a certain format when sending them out.

In summary, we are dedicated to making Control-M our primary workload automation and orchestration software. Recently, we've begun integrating Control-M with Ansible to manage patch routines for our Linux and Windows servers. The challenge has been linking these patch routines with our application jobs. We've started this integration so that whenever there is a patch, our applications automatically halt until we receive confirmation from Ansible. We frequently use the Control-M API for this purpose, enabling seamless coordination between Ansible and Control-M. Overall, these are the main use cases we are currently implementing with Control-M, and we continually seek to expand its applications across our operations.

The application integrator provides a toolbox that makes integration easy. We use it to mask Python scripts that handle various routines, such as ZIP solutions, while the application integrator manages drop-down menus. Sometimes the integrations that Control-M provides are not suitable for our specific use cases. For instance, with S3 storage from Amazon, Control-M's integration only uses a small percentage of available S3 functionalities, so we had to create our own solution. When using BMC tools such as the application integrator, Control-M provides an easy path to integrate many features.

One thing we have criticized is the MFTE capabilities, particularly regarding high availability. BMC hasn't provided a setup with multiple fallbacks for error situations. We've experienced main problems with MFTE where having one setup means when an error occurs, the entire service goes down. We have requested BMC to provide a high availability solution for MFTE. While there are other minor issues, this remains our main concern.

I started using the z/OS parts in 2007-2008 for one to two years. After switching companies, I have been using it in its current form since 2013, totaling twelve years of experience.

It is usually very stable, except for the MFT solution where an error leads to an outage. This has occurred several times in the last two to three years. We are in direct contact with their lab development regarding these issues. While the system is stable 99% of the time, when issues occur, they are significant.

The scalability is very good with numerous configuration options available. Though we sometimes use load balancers in front of Control-M, the available functions offer good options for configuration. Our license doesn't limit our ability to configure Control-M as needed, allowing us to easily create new agents or environments.

I don’t contact the BMC support every day, but we are in constant communication with them. They are currently migrating many features to their web interface, which means some functionalities that were available on their desktop solution are now missing. As a result, we are creating a lot of tickets regarding this issue. At least once a week, one of my colleagues reaches out to BMC support.

Regarding the quality and speed of their responses, it really depends on the representative and the topic at hand. There are certain areas where they have more experienced experts, while in other cases, the support staff tends to rely on standard procedures. Generally, their answers are acceptable; I would rate them around a seven out of ten. Many times, their assistance is more like a nine or ten, but there are occasions when a representative provides standard responses without understanding the specific issue. In these situations, I often have to clarify the problem multiple times because they start with standard solutions that don’t apply to my case. Overall, I would rate their support around a solid seven out of ten.

Neutral

I previously used OPC (now TWS) from IBM for z/OS software. We regularly evaluate the market, comparing different vendors with BMC, including Redwood, Stone Branch, and HLC. While we conduct proof of concepts and demonstrations from various vendors, we maintain only one product installation.

Control-M was previously used for both z/OS (mainframe) and distributed environments. However, we have since migrated from the mainframe to a distributed system two years ago, and now Control-M is only implemented on the distributed side. I was responsible for this migration due to my knowledge of mainframe systems. While Control-M was already in place, certain functionalities, like data transfer, were not integrated into Control-M. This integration has been accomplished in the last five years.

The learning curve for me was easy due to my background. It took about a year maximum to transition into an administration role. My experience with both mainframe and distributed systems was beneficial. For new colleagues without z/OS background, the learning curve was steeper. While becoming a scheduler is relatively easy in Control-M, mastering specific features requires more time and learning.

In terms of maintenance, we usually have one or two major releases each year, which is quite a significant process. If there’s one area where BMC could improve, it would be optimizing the maintenance process. The type of maintenance required depends on the range of components included. If we talk specifically about the core Control-M product or its basic components, then currently, there isn’t much maintenance involved. However, when we include the agents, the maintenance requirements increase. Overall, I would classify the maintenance needs as moderate. It could be less demanding, particularly during situations like a major version change, where we would prefer to minimize outages. We are in discussions with BMC about how to enhance this process. To summarize, I would say that the maintenance requirements are not low, but they don’t necessitate weekly attention either. So, I would characterize it as being in the middle range.

Control-M is among the highest-priced solutions in the market. When comparing with other vendors, BMC consistently maintains premium pricing. We hope for more creative pricing solutions from BMC in the future, as currently, the price often remains constant regardless of package customization or feature selection. We would appreciate more pricing flexibility from BMC.

Our relationship with BMC is more in the direction of transformative. We’ve built a solid relationship with BMC over the years. It was a process, but I would classify it as transformative. They support us well. While there are certain functions we wish were available, overall, I think our relationship is transformative.

We have a good relationship with BMC, and that required effort on both sides. Sometimes, there’s a gap between what we need as customers and the direction BMC is heading. However, overall, we’re satisfied with how BMC provides us with solutions. Of course, there are things we feel are missing at times, but I also must say that the experience can vary depending on who you’re speaking with at BMC. The experience with sales representatives can differ from discussions with technical staff. In general, though, I would say the relationship is positive.

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

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 partners with Control-M, and I believe we have recently elevated to platinum status, though I am not entirely certain about that partnership level. We are partners with BMC, including both Control-M and Alex.

What I appreciate most about Control-M is the automation steps of how things are automated and scheduled. Our relationship with BMC is more transformative than transactional since we have been BMC partners for a long journey, almost more than ten years. We work closely with all partners on the BMC side and actively engage with all stakeholders, not just for the sake of the client, but we are closely involved with the respective stakeholders of BMC.

Regarding areas for improvement with Control-M, I would need to go into the depth of detail and provide specific feedback. If you share a form, I will have corrections and additional input from our team. Using the code option is better overall, but I believe better capacity planning can be done.

Unfortunately, to provide meaningful feedback regarding room for improvement, we need to identify something Control-M can do better or something they can add in a future release.

Throughout my career, I have been using Control-M for almost more than six or seven years. From my perspective, I have recently taken on the lead role for Control-M for two years.

Regarding stability, I rarely observe any lagging, crashing, or downtime when I use Control-M. That very rarely happens based on memory space or statistics. With respect to resolution management and ticket management systems, BMC always responds first. We would appreciate improved feedback on solution response time, which would be beneficial for us, the clients, and BMC as well.

I believe Control-M is scalable. Control-M is indeed scalable, and technically I need to verify this with the correct details and share them with you.

Control-M does not require any maintenance on my end, such as updates. I think BMC is doing a fantastic job with tenant updates and periodic knowledge updates, whereby they provide training sessions as well. Recently, BMC has separated into two categories, and Control-M also has a separate wing. The tenant and the helpline are very good, but we have to continuously review the material released by BMC.

I have not used any alternatives or similar solutions to Control-M. We have heard about some products, but we are not using any alternative. Alex ITSM is a different platform. Control-M is the only solution we are using with respect to the client side.

Regarding the initial deployment of Control-M, I need to check with my solution architect because I am not involved on the daily operation side. From a high-level perspective, I observe that the initial setup and most of the configuration and other aspects are done, but better port level and prerequisite level automation or a more comprehensive checklist provided to partners would make the setup easier rather than complicated during the initial stage.

Our technical team members continue to contact our respective project stakeholders, though this is not from my side. I am overseeing the Control-M use overall.

Control-M is scalable and does an excellent job overall. The approximate number of people using Control-M is around fourteen or more. I am not the appropriate person to ask about the pricing of Control-M; a direct person from the sales team would have direct visibility of the pricing side. Regarding how well Control-M integrates with other solutions in our stack, I do not have the correct technical answer. My rating of Control-M overall is eight point five out of ten. The two reasons for not giving a ten out of ten are that the initial setup configuration can be better, though our team is working on it, and everything else is good. Do you have any mechanism to route questions about technical integration to the technical person leading this area?

My use case for Control-M is orchestration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

The deployment of the solution is easy.

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

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

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

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

My relationship with BMC is good. 

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

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

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.

Control-M is a fantastic product in terms of automation. It is predominantly used for task scheduling, and it is one of the finest products available. We use it especially for task scheduling, and most BFSI customers are using it for transaction settlement. We have used it for credit card transaction settlements.

Control-M is a fantastic product in terms of automation. It is predominantly used for task scheduling, and it is one of the finest products available. We use it especially for task scheduling, and most BFSI customers are using it for transaction settlement.

There is nothing disliking about it. To be very frank, it is one of the finest products that came after IBM high frames. The use cases are predominantly in BFSI. If it could do something in manufacturing, it would be helpful where we could do automation using Control-M or something that focuses on domain-specific needs in manufacturing.

Control-M is a fantastic product in terms of automation. It is predominantly used for task scheduling, and it is one of the finest products available. We use it especially for task scheduling, and most BFSI customers are using it for transaction settlement.

It is quite easy and not a big challenge. It is pretty simple and not complicated. It just requires an understanding, and it is plug and play. Wherever we are implementing it or it is getting implemented, it is smooth and running.

Control-M is definitely a scalable product. There are no two thoughts on it. Scalability is amazing.

Any product will have some concerns. It depends on implementation and integrations and how we are doing it, and support here is decent enough.

The pricing is acceptable. It is not that heavy compared to other products like ServiceNow and SAP.

UiPath can be used to a certain extent, but Control-M has its own flavors. If it is invoice processing or if robotic automation is needed, I would go for UiPath. If task scheduling or something related to BFSI is needed, I would use Control-M. It depends on use cases.

UiPath can be used for any kind of use cases in terms of automation, but Control-M has its own flavor. ServiceNow as a platform is a great enterprise platform. UiPath has its own automation flavors, and Control-M has its own scheduling and task automation. Everything comes with its own flavors and provides output. It depends on the use case.

I am comfortable with the feedback I have provided. I rate this product an eight out of ten.