Control-M Reviews

I have been working with Control-M for eight years. Control-M was simply used for batch scheduling. I use Control-M on a day-to-day basis. Control-M allows me to automate the process of running the JCLs. From my perspective, Control-M works well, and I would say that it is a very good tool for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows. Control-M is very important to my DataOps initiatives due to the specifics of the functioning of the logic of IT business processes in a bank. I am not in DevOps, but I think it is not so difficult to integrate Control-M with technologies for my DataOps and DevOps processes as things change.

That is a difficult question because I do not actually know any other tool that would be competitive with this one. I appreciate Control-M because it is a very reliable tool and it is easy to work with. I cannot imagine my work without Control-M; it is a core tool in banking systems, so I think that without it, it would be difficult to run a bank itself.

I do not see any improvement needs for Control-M at this time. There are not really any features that are missing in Control-M at the moment that I would like to see included in the future or enhanced somehow. I am not sure if this is the case, but perhaps the knowledge of how to use Control-M should be more propagated or better accessed. It can be used in other aspects than my needs, so it is also valuable to know.

I have been working with Control-M for eight years.

Control-M is quite stable; I have not had any crashes, downtimes, or performance issues with it.

I have never had a need to scale Control-M, so I cannot tell you if it is difficult because I have never had a need to do this.

I did not migrate from Broadcom CA, Redwood Technologies, or any other similar solutions to BMC. I have not switched from a different product; I started using Control-M straightforwardly.

From my perspective, to start working with Control-M, you need to learn, but it is not difficult to get a grasp of how it works.

I do not know because I did not set Control-M up. I did not have an internal team or any partners, consultants, or BMC representatives help me with the setup.

It is difficult to say how many users are using Control-M in my environment; probably over a thousand, but different roles, I would say. I have it across different locations and different departments.

Given my experience with Control-M, I would recommend it. Control-M is a good, reliable tool, and I do not think that there is much of a competitor for this in terms of banking solutions.

My use case with Control-M spans three different organizations, primarily in the banking domain throughout my experience, working with major banks. Now I am in the telecom industry, where major telecom companies use Control-M for their operations.

The best features in Control-M include the ability to schedule scripts at any time, and if they are not running, there is an option to run them again without any manual intervention in case any execution fails, plus you can get failure logs and alerts directly if a job fails. 

It's a user-friendly tool. I've used other solutions which are not as user-friendly. It's easy to understand.

It is simple to integrate Control-M with technologies for your data operations and DevOps processes, especially as we upgrade this tool to the latest versions, providing more options for integration with cloud solutions. It is not very challenging if you are skilled with Control-M and integration aspects, such as using Control-M APIs to connect your applications and action on jobs or run scripts through API calls as well.

I see major improvements from Control-M, specifically since I started with version seven, and now we are on version 9.21. I have seen major changes, such as transitioning from a thick-client version to an online self-service version accessible through the Internet, alongside multiple UI changes.

Currently, there is room for improvement in the cost aspect compared to other tools. Control-M could be more user-friendly, and while it is user-friendly now, it can be improved to be more intuitive.

I have been using Control-M for the last ten years.

I experience very little downtime with Control-M and would rate its stability eight out of ten.

Regarding scalability, I would rate it around eight out of ten.

Control-M requires maintenance, and we need support from BMC; it would be beneficial if BMC invested more in providing customer support to users. 

I assess BMC services for helping my team with migrations and overall strategy as very good; when we raise cases to them, they help us understand and provide valuable feedback, and I would rate this support an eight out of ten. My relationship with BMC is more transactional.

Positive

I did not migrate from Broadcom, CA, Redwood, or any other similar solutions in any of those companies.

The deployment is a bit complex. 

It has saved us time and money.

When compared with other tools, Control-M is a bit costly. That said, it provides the best results, and since it is very user-friendly, investing in it gives you great outcomes. I'd rate the pricing seven out of ten.

If I compare Control-M with other solutions or vendors on the market, it stands out for its security and is the best in the market as of now due to its functionality and cost-effectiveness, which usually comes from the total number of executions in your organization, making it a great choice for daily activities.

I would recommend Control-M to other users. Although it is slightly more expensive on the market compared to other tools, it is very user-friendly and includes multiple features, such as integration with other applications. 

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Control-M a seven.

We have been using it in the institute to manage all the student data and post-study processes.

We have been using Control-M in our IT department to maintain server backups and database updates and schedule regular updates. Furthermore, it is being used in our library system to automate periodic updates of library catalogs. Control-M also automates email notifications for event announcements and fee structures.

The best feature is that we can automate everything. Moreover, we can access all the features through one dashboard, which is beneficial. 

We have been using Control-M for managing simple automation tasks. It will be very effective in managing other types of tasks. Control-M has the potential and can be very useful in managing business aspects.

The licensing cost can be improved. Although it provides good value, it could be better. The pricing model should be optimized.

Its initial setup is a bit complex. They could provide more documentation and tutorials to make the initial setup easier to understand. Enhancing the documentation could simplify the setup process.

We have been using it for more than one and a half years.

The tasks we have been handling are straightforward automation tasks. Considering that, I would rate it a ten out of ten.

It is scalable. I would rate it a nine out of ten for scalability.

We have 50 to 60 users.

Technical support has improved. In the past, they were not as supportive, but they are better now. Based on recent experiences, I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

This is the first solution that we have used.

The initial setup and configuration are a bit challenging. There is a bit of a learning curve for some people. It takes a few days.

At the time, there were not many recommendations or resources to understand and deploy it properly, so it took us a couple of weeks to understand and deploy. It has been simplified over the last eight to ten months.

We implemented it in-house.

It has reduced the total cost of ownership by 30% to 40%. 

It has saved a lot of time for our employees and staff members. For a small task, there have been about 40% to 50% time savings.

It is a little bit expensive.

Our relationship with BMC is more transformative. We consider BMC as a strategic partner and trusted advisor.

I would definitely recommend Control-M to every institute because it is extremely helpful to manage every task without any manual error. I would suggest trying Control-M at least once. It is also recommended to start with the documentation and familiarize oneself with basic concepts before integrating it into the business aspect. 

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We use Control-M for ACS and Azure services as it has inbuilt cloud integration. We have a product that works on government databases where we use data scraping and then integrate it with Azure and OpenAI. This integration allows us to process data and get insights. We also use AWS services to save the processed data in the AS.

Control-M is a bit faster compared to other solutions. The job and coding are easier. Also, my DevOps and Ops teams work collaboratively with it, enhancing its efficiency. The workflow is much easier compared to the ACS services we were using. Automation is more advanced, deployment is fast, and version control has been simplified.

They should have a proper integration method that clearly defines the workflow. Additionally, there should be an automation system for developers to set it up more easily and quickly. My Ops team faces certain problems that need addressing.

I have been using Control-M for four to five months.

The downtime is higher compared to AWS. Indexing and databasing are more challenging, and the endpoint sometimes gets reset automatically. The accuracy rate is about 80% to 85%.

As we hire new interns and DevOps partners to scale our business, Control-M scales well with the enterprise's growth. As the workload on Control-M increases, its scalability is much higher. Its cost is very low.

I never had direct communication with technical support because solutions are available on the web. We didn't have a one-on-one conversation, but the support is adequate through online resources.

Neutral

We migrated from AWS to Control-M. It was more cost-effective and capable compared to AWS services. We were a startup with limited resources.

The setup was manageable with certain experienced DevOps staff, making it easy to deploy on the local server.

There was an built-in DevOps team that found Control-M more cost-effective and capable than AWS services.

New users should have a comprehensive understanding of how BMC and Control-M operate. Good coding skills are essential, as well as utilizing open-source codes. Monitoring should be done by someone knowledgeable about the system. I would rate Control-M a seven out of ten.

In my company, we use Control-M as the main scheduling and automation tool for ETL processes. It orchestrates data flows from AIX servers to Linux and Windows platforms, integrates with Informatica PowerCenter for data transformation, and also manages dependencies with several network-based applications.

Control-M has significantly improved our organization by providing centralized scheduling and monitoring of ETL workflows. It allows us to automate complex job dependencies across different platforms, including AIX, Linux, and Windows. With Control-M, we can integrate seamlessly with Informatica PowerCenter for data transformation, ensuring that data pipelines run consistently and on time.

The first aspect is in real-time monitoring. Control-M has good visibility of thousands of jobs, and normally runs at the scheduled time. Control-M scheduling has always executed according to a different schedule, except when incidents occur, such as storage vapor.

I think Control-M has room for improvement because it should refresh more frequently.

I have been working in my current position for four months as a monitoring operator.

I would rate the stability of Control-M a 9.5 out of 10.

I would rate the scalability of Control-M at 9.5 out of 10.

I would rate technical support for Control-M at nine point five because it provides separate level error classification, which is a very important feature. The separate level error classification helps in determining the severity of issues.

Positive

Many engineers in our organization use Control-M, including both vendors and internal employees, approximately 100 in total.

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

In my job, we mainly use BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for processes like recharge and billing requirements and customer data management, which we handle using Control-M MFT and scheduling jobs.

Based on my experience, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer provides significant benefits for our company by facilitating communication and data transfer between numerous databases and servers, ensuring we maintain only the necessary files while removing old ones. When commuicating between one server to another, from one team to another, MFT helps a lot. 

The advanced feature of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is what I find most valuable, as it allows for numerous operations, such as stopping the entire processing if the source file fails and replacing the destination with new files if there's a failure. 

The solution has definitely improved application reliability and SLA in our company, as SLA is crucial in my organization, helping to reduce the SLA and maintain the MTTR.

The usability is quite good for tracking a large number of files. To try tracking a large number of files from source to destination, it's it takes a lot of efforts if done manually. So MFT helps a lot with automating that process.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer already works great, though there could be improvements for transferring large files, particularly those that are in gigabytes, as it sometimes poses problems.

I have been working with BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for four or more years.

I would rate the stability of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer an eight out of ten, with two points off due to issues with transferring gigabyte files.

In terms of scalability, I would rate BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a nine out of ten for its ability to scale and expand.

For BMC technical support, I would rate it a seven out of ten. Sometimes the support is not readily available, and they often request the same information multiple times, with delays in providing solutions.

Positive

I don't have experience with competitor products, as my experience is solely with BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer.

We do the deployment process of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer in-house, and our team recently developed a BladeLogic job that automates Control-M agent deployment, fulfilling all prerequisites such as FS need, FS size need, and Java need.

The deployment process, in general, is simple. You can upgrade as well quite easily.

We handle the implementation in-house.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has definitely helped to reduce IT operations cost, as maintaining files manually takes a lot of human time, and this automation significantly alleviates that burden.

The pricing for licensing has increased. I'd rate the pricing three out of ten.

Regarding workflow orchestration, I haven't quite used that part of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer yet. I am totally satisfied with the functionality of the BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer product.

I would definitely recommend BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer solution to other users.

Overall, I would rate BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer an eight out of ten.

The main use case is to automate business processes from ERPs, SAP, databases, and file transfers. I also use it with DataOps and DevOps. It is very easy because Control-M has native integrations with many tools, and BMC develops more integrations every month, making integration straightforward.

Recently, BMC has focused on cutting-edge technologies, such as cloud, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. These are the latest connectors that BMC has released for these technologies.

Control-M is an orchestration tool that provides a broad and complete vision of your environment. You can integrate many different heterogeneous technologies. The main feature is its role as an orchestrator. It is easy to use and has numerous native integrations. If you need a specific integration for a homegrown application, you can develop a connector for that as well. Control-M can be used with a job as code approach, and it provides audit and governance capabilities on the platform.

I cannot identify areas for improvement at this time because Control-M is a state-of-the-art technology.

I have been using this solution for more than 15 years.

The deployment process is very straightforward. There are two distributions for Control-M: an on-premise offer, which is the classical offer, and Control-M as Software as a Service. While Control-M is easy to implement overall, the Software as a Service approach offers many advantages because customers don't need to worry about infrastructure since BMC handles it entirely. Additionally, customers don't need to perform upgrades and cumbersome initial setups.

The solution is very stable and secure.

The scalability is very good because Control-M implementation can be used in high availability. For on-premise implementation, you can distribute components of Control-M in different machines. The SaaS implementation is also very scalable.

The technical and customer support is excellent. BMC has great development in both areas. The support is accurate, and BMC is always ready to help with queries and complex incidents.

Positive

The benefits include achieving digital transformation, accelerating business processes, removing silos, and meeting SLAs at the exact time.

I am not comfortable discussing pricing details. I prefer to focus on technical issues.

I am a Control-M consultant working with utilities, banking, and government sectors. In Brazil, Control-M is used by a broad range of companies, including major financial companies, utilities, oil industry, telecom, and retail. Control-M is widely recognized in Brazil for orchestration. BMC continuously improves the tool. The reviewer has given Control-M a rating of 10 out of 10.

We use Control-M for orchestration.

The best feature of Control-M is its orchestration capabilities for any orchestration that's required. Control-M has positively impacted my organization by helping with orchestrating complex tasks.

The Alerting and Notification system is quite sufficient. It does what it's required to do.

The ability to deploy Control-M both in the cloud and on-premises is very important because the organization has a hybrid strategy, so Control-M helps in scenarios of moving files between on-prem and clouds.

Control-M could be improved on the reporting side. There can be better reporting on tasks and better dashboard capabilities for activities being completed. At the moment, it's a bit cumbersome if you receive an error message. There isn't a central place where you can view all of that.

I have an experience of approximately five years working with Control-M.

The solution is stable.

The on-premise setup of Control-M is not that scalable. As our demands increase, it is almost reaching its bottleneck. If I need to run parallel jobs, let's say double or triple the numbers that I'm currently doing, it will struggle to scale.

I would rate technical support from Control-M as a seven out of ten because the turnaround time was not adequate when running in production.

Neutral

I've made use of Pub/Sub in Google Cloud before using Control-M. I have not used any other solutions in this category. I would normally make use of the native tools in whatever cloud I was utilizing.

It was already set up when I joined, and it was a very intuitive tool to figure out.

There are time savings from a resource aspect with Control-M. There's definitely value there.

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

I use Control-M as a scheduling product. It runs batch job schedules, and I can run file transfers with it. However, it is primarily a scheduling product rather than a file transfer product. It is involved in health insurance as well.

The reporting and the analytics that I can generate out of my schedules are valuable. It is one of the tier-one control schedulers, so it integrates with quite a few other solutions. 

Additionally, it has a nice API, so I can call it from different products. I think the key thing is that if I have a staff that operates Control-M on Windows Server, they will easily pick it up if they need to run it on Unix or mainframes. It's the same interface, saving time and improving efficiency.

There is not much room for improvement. It already has a GUI and even a mobile app, although I don't use it. It is adequate for most scheduling needs. Offering it as open source for free would be great, however, that's unlikely. 

The solution is used by probably about five to ten people.

The stability is very good. 

It scales well, except for the cost. I have to pay per agent per server, which could be prohibitive for some organizations.

I find the customer service to be excellent. BMC provides excellent service. I would definitely rate it a ten out of ten.

Positive

The interface is better with Control-M than with Borkom's Atomic Engine or AE, the old UC four product. The interface is cleaner with Control-M.

I have set it up a few times, and overall, it is pretty straightforward.

Since I'm not the vendor, I'm not going to disclose that information. The product has enough options to disable features that could expose proprietary information. 

One feature is that I can look at the output of a job, however, that can be disabled with security. It integrates LDAP and Active Directory authentication processes, making it secure and compliant. 

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. We are just customers and not partners or resellers. 

Control-M is mainly used for our clients. We use workload automation and batch job automation with Control-M. There are many other BMC products that we use, such as AMI Ops automation, DB2 monitoring, and application infrastructure monitoring.

The user experience with Control-M is good. Users can implement many customizations, and though the licensing is pricey, there are many competitive products available that can provide the same features as BMC. BMC support and some of the customizations are very good. Product support and the ability to manage distributed and mainframe workloads make Control-M an enterprise workload management solution. It is easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for data ops or DevOps processes as things change, and it is not complex compared to other workload automation tools available in the market.

BMC does excellent marketing. Their product narrative is very good. From the functional side, there is no superiority when compared with other products. All products provide the same functionality. If you examine IBM Workload Scheduler, Stonebranch, or Rocket Orchestrator, there are many other products available. These products provide the same functions in one way or another. BMC might provide better user experience and better product support than other products, but there is no clear technical differentiation or value proposition when compared to other products with BMC. They offer essentially the same features.

Control-M has been part of my experience for two to three years.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate BMC's support an eight. They have very good manuals, and they respond to tickets quickly. They provide clear details about issues. From the product support perspective, they always perform well. They continuously evolve rather than letting the product remain static. This is one of the differentiators compared to other products. They quickly evolve with changing technology trends, easily adopt new features, and incorporate them into the product.

Control-M is good so far, other than being somewhat pricey.

The implementation requires significant time and personnel resources, and they are pricey. The migration costs are very high, and the available skills are limited.

I am familiar with other workload automation tools and have used many. Our clients use IBM Workload Scheduler, Rocket Enterprise Orchestrator, CA ESP, and Stonebranch, though I cannot specify why we use BMC instead of those alternatives.

It is difficult to clearly differentiate how Control-M has improved our organization's functions because many other products offer the same functionality. The key factors are how users can easily adapt to the product, the available functions and features in the BMC product, and mainly the product support.