Control-M Reviews

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

I have been using Control-M for five years.

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is good.

The customer support for Control-M is good.

Positive

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

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

Currently, I'm working as a senior software engineer in HSBC. Here in my organization, we are using Control-M as a batch job scheduler. We use folders, calendars, and templates in Control-M for a number of applications. On a daily basis, as I mentioned earlier, it is a batch job scheduler; we support this application for a number of markets, including seven markets in the APAC region, five markets in MENA, and another market called AOC China. Control-M is used for all these markets, which total around 13 markets. Daily, we have batches where we use shell scripting code in Control-M for routine work by creating a job that runs based on the timings specified. 

These jobs execute commands, and we receive logs. Regarding folders and calendars, we manage our schedules based on holidays, weekends, and month-end requirements with various calendars to avoid running jobs at unwanted times. For example, we have calendars for the first day of the month and for month-end reports. Folders help organize jobs categorized based on APAC, MENA, and AOC China regions, with each folder having jobs executed based on their dependencies and specified timings.

Control-M is very easy to use. There shouldn't be any technical knowledge required for using Control-M. I have experience with AutoSys, and I find Control-M easier to understand. There is no need for technical knowledge to use Control-M, making it more user-friendly compared to other tools in the market. The initial setup for Control-M is easier. The support we receive from BMC is wonderful. They contact us promptly and resolve any issues quickly.

There are a few suggestions for improvement. Currently, the history module captures only seven days of job execution data, and if we had at least 30 days available, that would be beneficial for investigating any issues. Additionally, in the monitoring module, we can only view 15 days of statistics for job execution, which includes details such as start time, end time, and runtime. I recommend that if we could have 30 days of statistics available, it would greatly enhance the Control-M user experience.

I have been using Control-M for around three and a half years.

The product is stable.

The scalability of Control-M rates as a nine out of ten.

Whenever we encounter any issue with Control-M and contact BMC, the support we receive from them is wonderful. They contact us promptly and resolve any issues quickly. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate their support a nine.

Positive

The initial setup for Control-M is easier than other solutions.

Comparing Control-M to other batch job schedulers in the market, I would give it an eight out of ten based on my experience.

Problems with Control-M can arise depending on the data center where the servers are hosted. There are occasional server down issues, which occur rarely and usually last only for a few minutes, after which everything is fine. We are customers of BMC, not partners.

I would definitely recommend Control-M to others because, based on my experience with other tools, BMC is recommended over others. Control-M is easier to understand, with no technical knowledge required. A quick glance at the modules shows that job creation and management is straightforward. Self-script developers can quickly familiarize themselves with Control-M compared to other tools available.

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

My main use case for Control-M is data management and control. I use Control-M in data center management, server management, and all compliance-related functions. My use case for Control-M involves day-to-day data center management specifically, focusing on compliance, handling daily operations, server monitoring, hardware monitoring, and the compliance measures we are following.

Control-M offers excellent end-to-end integration capabilities. The end-to-end integration connects multiple environments seamlessly, including cloud environments like AWS and GCP, which helps us significantly.

Control-M has intelligent data pipelines, manages file transfers, and MFTs, which are the best features we are using.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization with cost savings. We are mostly following compliance measures as per the RBI guidelines, making most of the compliance processes quicker by accessing them through Control-M.

Control-M helps me meet RBI compliance by generating automated reports, adding security features, and addressing fines we might incur due to compliance shortfalls.

I would like to point out that the bank needs to explore how we can better utilize Control-M according to our specific requirements.

I have been using Control-M for more than a year.

Control-M is correctly aligned with our banking environment, so everything is good and set.

Regarding Control-M's AI capabilities, I believe we do not currently have any AI inputs, but as far as security is concerned, it may be a good combination if we integrate that in our data center.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is great.

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

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

We directly chose Control-M without evaluating other options.

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

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

My use case for Control-M is that it's a job scheduler for some jobs regarding data warehouse jobs and billing tasks for a telecommunication company, mainly monitoring jobs.

The best features of Control-M that I most appreciate are the integration and unification of different systems, such as BMC Remedy, integration with alerting systems, and the unification for the dashboard—something akin to one dashboard to monitor everything, which is very good. It can communicate with different platforms such as cloud, different systems, and OSes. I also appreciate the visualization; when we are designing a tree, a job tree, the option to visualize the dependencies and the mapping is very user-friendly.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization, particularly in the flexibility it offers in scheduling jobs. It has a nice feature called Calendar Integration that integrates with the company calendar to allow for the holidays and special events regarding the organization, not only the public calendar, but specifically for the organization.

There are some areas in Control-M that have room for improvement, particularly some constraints regarding the scripts, such as limitations in how they can be executed and integrated; it's not the normal scripting way in some cases. It's not in all cases, but in some cases, there are limitations and constraints in running the scripts. 

Additionally, Control-M requires some hardware resources in terms of system requirements; it consumes some hardware resources.

I have been using Control-M for about five years or more than five years.

The stability of Control-M gets a nine from me; although we faced one issue during this year regarding its stability, nine is good for it.

Scalability for Control-M is good; I would rate it an eight due to the high license cost, but it's scalable.

I would rate the technical support for Control-M a nine.

Positive

I have seen a return on investment with Control-M; we have the real-time alert feature. Our administrators get alerts for any job failures or emails for any issues, which saves our business. We also have reporting tools embedded in Control-M to generate daily reports and keep historical data. All of this handles our job, mainly the monitoring and automation for the scheduling. That's why we are using it.

My thoughts on the pricing of Control-M are that the cost of the license is very high. You have to implement some cost-saving measures, such as cleaning up jobs that are not required anymore on a monthly basis, in order to control the license, as the license is very costly. 

Additionally, there's a dependency on training; on a yearly basis, or whenever there's a new version, we need to schedule training and an official training from an accredited course center or from BMC itself, which is very costly.

I haven't dealt with other solutions or vendors on the market, but I can say Control-M is better than good when it comes to automation.

There is a good feature about the drag-and-drop; we can easily create and modify jobs with drag-and-drop in the interface, which makes it easier and user-friendly. BMC is a good strategic partner; they are helping us in mapping out our migration strategy, and we have a team from their side that supports us in our job. They know our case and they are specialized in our system, following up on our system.

I recommend Control-M to other users because it's user-friendly, it has a unified dashboard, and it's easy to schedule and use. However, there are certain limitations, especially for larger organizations, to afford the cost of the license and the cost of training. For a small organization, I wouldn't recommend it, as it would be very costly for them.

I would rate Control-M an eight out of ten, considering I have some concerns about the cost and the training, which is also related to cost.