Control-M Reviews

My main use case for Control-M is that we use it for DevOps jobs.

A quick, specific example of a DevOps job I run with Control-M is that we patch servers often, and we have a sophisticated deployment process for different packages in our on-premises servers. We do not just use an out-of-the-box package manager; we have a Control-M process that handles pushing these patches into these controlled environments.

Regarding my main use case or how I use Control-M for these deployments, that is everything I do. We have lots of different Control-M jobs for doing different things, but we mostly use it for patching.

My main business use cases or services supported by Control-M include DevOps and management of devices used for deploying our application at different environments.

Control-M's reliability is its big appeal to me, as it has consistently worked for the organization since long before I got into it. Its simplicity in that way and its user interface are the big appeal, but that is about it.

That reliability and simplicity have helped my team when it works correctly and as desired, as the little task box turns red when it has failed, which is a good indicator for us that it is something we need to look at. It is an easy way to review a large number of jobs through a kind of world view of all the jobs, allowing us to see if anything has failed and letting us know what has failed in a nice user interface, making it very accessible to a lot of teammates. However, it has the drawback that just because a job has not completed successfully does not mean it has returned an error that turns the box red.

I do not have any metrics regarding how Control-M has improved the way my organization functions. It seems to have been picked a long time ago for its nice UI, but I think we made poor use of it. Good use of it is not very intuitive, and the lack of integrated version control makes people afraid to change things to try and improve them. Due to its proprietary nature, we lack environments to test adjustments on, which leads me to believe it has not been particularly helpful.

The best features Control-M offers, in my opinion, include the ability to selectively hold and run different jobs and the nice user interface, although I am not really keen on Control-M myself. It is not version controlled, which I really hate, or at least our implementation of it, but it is lacking in a lot of features. That is why I also use Jenkins.

The UI helps my daily workflow by giving us a quick visual way to establish what kind of progress a specific job is making.

I would appreciate Control-M providing better logging on the output of different jobs because sometimes a job completes and it thinks it succeeded, but it did not. There should be more programmability around error logging and better integration with version control. We are not really using Control-M as well as we could because we are not parameterizing all of our jobs and their steps, which I think can be done better, but that should be a lot easier to do. It is very hard to update these jobs, especially since we do not have something such as a JSON file for it that we can update.

To improve Control-M, there needs to be more programmability around how and when we log errors, and it would be nice to have some tools that actually allow us to interface with Control-M with scripts being run by the task steps. I think it would be beneficial to have some kind of configuration file that we could read, representing each job, giving us the ability to text edit these jobs instead of having to drag these boxes around, which is inconvenient. Additionally, better integration with version control, a web view, and improved resizing for the desktop application would be awesome. I also find that when I search jobs, the search bar does not order them in the order they are actually executed in, just alphabetically, and better searchability for these jobs is needed, especially when you have a large number of them in queue simultaneously.

It is very inconvenient to integrate Control-M with technologies for my data ops and DevOps processes as things change.

I would assess Control-M for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows as not very effective. I use Control-M at least every few days, but it presents a kind of unhelpful user interface. While we have more senior people on my team familiar with all these functionalities, I mostly just run patches when needed, which is not very convenient. Coming from a more Linux-heavy world with depth in Jenkins, I find that these processes are much more convenient and the user interface for actual configuration and programming is much easier. Overall, Control-M comes across as very low-tech and clunky.

Using Control-M has made it pretty much impossible to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines across on-premises and cloud technologies. We almost never make new Control-M jobs because it is so inconvenient, and it is just a very clunky and tough tool to use. I would almost always prefer to do my work with Jenkins or simply write a Python script that logs its progress rather than use Control-M due to the cumbersome process of breaking steps into little boxes without version control.

I have been using Control-M for just a year.

I do not really know how many users are using Control-M in my organization, but my team consists of about ten people using it on and off, depending on our needs at the time.

I do not know how long the deployment of Control-M took, as that predates me by a long time.

I did not participate in the migration to Control-M, and I assume that over time, we will migrate more to Jenkins, as much as we can in the probably distant future.

I would rate Control-M overall a two out of ten.

I rate it that low because it is really very low-tech for what it does, and it has really fallen behind a lot of DevOps tooling. I use Jenkins here and there, which has version control and the convenience of managing credentials, making it easy to add agents and nodes, and it facilitates connections between those nodes more intuitively than what Control-M does. Control-M just makes you SSH into target machines; it essentially runs scripts and lacks built-in configuration compared to a tool such as Jenkins. Even though Control-M seems general-purpose, that just means it is not very well applied to the DevOps work I do, making it a clunky, proprietary piece of software. Its user interfaces are not really that valuable to actual technical people who just want good logging and good integrations for their automation.

Regarding Control-M's AI capabilities, I have not seen any governance and security features.

I have never used Control-M's AI capabilities to assess the accuracy and reliability of output.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Control-M is that it is good to have code in front of you. Many organizations have followed trends onto tools that are very WYSIWYG, and I have used several such as Telerik Reports in the past. If you do not have code in front of you, you do not really know what is going on, and it becomes hard to facilitate integrations and log specific technical and business functionalities. Buying higher-level proprietary tools can lock you out of your own workflow due to the lack of customization and access.

My advice to others looking into using Control-M is to not do that because it is a proprietary product that overlaps a lot with newer open-source technology that is more accessible and paradigmatic for modern software development. Since it is a commercial product, the company likely offers consulting for best practices on how to use it, and getting training for its intended users along with documentation within the organization could help prevent other companies from falling into the same un-paradigmatic usage we have experienced.

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.

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.

Control-M is similar to Stonebranch and Redwood. It is a workload automation system that automates steps typically defined by humans. Previously, if humans performed 100 steps to complete a task, they can now input these steps into Control-M and let the system run them automatically. 

The most common use case is in banking. In banking operations, there are daily transactions between customers that need to be processed, closed, summarized, compiled, and sent to the core banking system for execution. Manually, this process could take more than eight hours per day. With Control-M automation, this time can be reduced to one hour or even 30 minutes. Before the cutoff time at 12:00 a.m., Control-M performs the batch job or end-of-day process, executes it, passes it to the core system, and marks it as a finished job for the day.

Control-M makes it simple to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines. Essentially, you have a single dashboard where you can manage everything. You can create the job, perform quality checks before promoting it to development, and then execute it in production. You can also monitor the jobs to see if they fail or trigger any alerts that require attention. Overall, the process is very straightforward and simple.

It is pretty easy to integrate with technologies for data operations and DevOps processes as things change. Control-M is API ready, so as long as the other side also has an API, it’s a done deal.

Stability is crucial in the banking or financial sector, where operational downtime must be minimized. Control-M provides exceptional stability compared to competitors such as Redwood, Stonebranch, or Perpetuity. The second valuable feature is the user-friendliness of the tools, making it easy to learn and use.

Control-M can execute batch jobs and monitor the jobs it executes, though it does not monitor servers or other systems.

Since the system is stable, clients don't typically request rapid improvements. However, one area that could be improved is the AI capability and AI generative features, as these are becoming increasingly important in modern systems.

I have been working with it since late 2010, approximately 15 years.

After migration to Control-M, there is an initial stabilization period. Once properly implemented, the system becomes very stable, which is one of its strongest attributes.

It is a scalable solution. Our clients are enterprises. About 85% of banks in my country use Control-M.

I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

There was a previous solution from either Redwood or Stonebranch, and another tool called Perpetuity. Customers were successfully persuaded to migrate from these solutions to Control-M. The success rate of migrations is usually more than 97%, and it may even be almost 100%.

Implementing it is not straightforward. It requires careful installation, customization, and configuration. Unlike simply installing Microsoft Windows or Office, this solution demands significant effort and time. It is not as simple as it may seem.

Technical migration can be completed in a few months, but full implementation including user adoption and socialization typically takes about a year. This is because the tool has various users beyond IT, including business users, trade finance users, and branch users who need time to learn and become comfortable with the system.

We have previously attempted to work with the services team from BMC and found their design to be good. However, we prefer not to proceed with the actual on-site implementation. Their prices are quite high, and their approach is too rigid for our needs. Therefore, we believe it is better for us to handle the implementation ourselves.

Automation can benefit customers in many ways, particularly when it comes to saving money. For example, if we rely on human workers, we may face long Recovery Point Objective (RPO) times, which could extend up to 88 hours a day. Additionally, humans are prone to making mistakes. Let's consider a scenario where an operator is manually summarizing transactions from a single branch. If that branch has 10,000 transactions in one day, it can be quite challenging for the operator to keep track. This may lead to issues like double data entry, where the operator mistakenly inputs the same data twice. Such errors can be disastrous for a bank, potentially resulting in financial losses. By implementing automation tools, you can minimize human errors and improve efficiency.

The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for Control-M is more economical compared to other solutions. While competitors might offer lower initial prices, they often include hidden costs that emerge after the first year. Control-M maintains a straightforward pricing model based on license count, implementation, and training, without unexpected future costs.

Control-M uses a simple pricing model based on the number of jobs per license, where one job equals one license. After assessing customer needs, proposals typically include the required number of job licenses plus implementation fees. The implementation fee covers installation, customization, configuration, job building, testing, and execution until the solution is running perfectly.

When you purchase a license, it's typically through a subscription model. Some people refer to this as a subscription type or ops type. If a customer opts for a subscription, it's similar to renting a car; you must renew it each year. It's important to note that there may be an annual price increase determined by BMC, and the specifics will be decided by the principal.

BMC is an important strategic partner for our company. Around 70% to 80% of our business comes from working with BMC, or more specifically, from selling BMC products.

The biggest lesson learned is the importance of providing perspective to customers rather than simply following their requests. It's crucial to understand and discuss their requirements thoroughly, such as questioning why they need a specific number of jobs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I use Control-M extensively on a daily basis.

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

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

I have been using Control-M for 15 years.

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

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

I would rate the technical support a 10.

Positive

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

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

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.