Control-M Reviews

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.

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.

We have several SAP systems such as IBP, S4HANA, SolMan, etc. By implementing Helix Control-M, we wanted a tool that monitors different activities on these platforms and launches jobs.

Each company has a different number of jobs. We have thousands of jobs, but we have selected the most critical jobs of the company that normally run in the early morning. We wanted a platform that allows us to launch the job, for example, from point A until it finishes, and then there is also the possibility of being able to launch another job from another tool, which could be a SaaS tool, such as IBP so that several jobs can be executed and finished in parallel. If there is a failure in the system, we send an email, and for much more important things, generate a ticket in a tool called SolMan so that the support team can attend to the case that has arisen due to the failure of a job.

All those human errors that we were facing did not occur again. All these processes are critical for the company. We have implemented 22 processes. One of the processes starts at eleven at night. The process runs in S4HANA. It sends data to IBP, and IBP makes an optimizer and then it becomes a request that specifies the national transfers of the products that are going to be distributed. In other words, these are requests that indicate how many products should be sent from one point to another point for the customer at a national level. At six in the morning, another team, which is the distribution team, waits for this request to assemble the trucks and get them ready to leave. If they do not have this request, the trucks will remain stationary. By having the trucks stopped, there is no distribution, so there can be a loss of sales. There can be a drop in stock. You accumulate inventory in the warehouse because the plant continues producing, but where are you going to put the new products? There are a series of consequences that can cause the process to fail because we did not have immediate action to create that request. This tool has helped us positively impact the company's processes. We could get its benefits immediately after the implementation.

Helix Control-M’s ability to build, schedule, manage, and monitor application and data workflows in production is good. When we went live and throughout the first stage of the project, I thought it was great because we received full support. Now that we have the tool live, I have presented more cases, and I feel that they are a little slower. I have to try harder to get their attention.

Helix Control-M has affected our ability to orchestrate data pipelines in production. It has been a great benefit. Little by little, users' trust is increasing. When there is just one small failure, they usually stop believing in the tool. With a more solid tool like this, we have fewer errors, which means more trust of the users.

Helix Control-M has given our company’s business users visibility and control over their jobs and freed up IT personnel for other tasks. It has freed us up a lot because previously, IT used to coordinate meetings with the company that gave us the manual service. We had to meet and discuss failures and issues, but we no longer have these meetings because that third-party company is no longer there. We replaced them with this solution, and it has freed up a few hours. Being able to free up the company's IT team is important because we have so many issues to deal with. Nowadays, technology and innovation are in full swing, and users are constantly asking for new things, so the more we focus on those things, the better.

Helix Control-M has affected collaboration between IT and our business users. Previously, our business users only complained about process failures, and now they themselves can reprogram. Before Helix Control-M, we had to send emails with the reprogramming. Despite that, they did not do what we had specified in the email, so it was all a waste of time. We wasted time with the business, and we wasted time meeting with this company. In the end, they did not do what we had told them. Nowadays, the user interacts directly with the tool because they have access. They themselves can reprogram those processes. There is less need to have a meeting, and there is also a reduction in the email replies and forwards. We have reduced everything. They directly interact with the tool to launch and relaunch.

First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate.

The second valuable feature is that there have been many benefits, which we have been utilizing little by little.

The third valuable feature is that there is a good support team. They have solved things that other companies have not done. When it comes to IBP, because it is SaaS, it was not easy for our team, but we received good support. At first, there were also issues regarding the functionality of SolMan. We saw that it was not going to work, so we did not go live with that, but they told us that there was going to be a new version where the ticket would be generated almost automatically. Because they were releasing a technical issue that would allow us to generate a job automatically and generate a ticket in a simpler way, we waited for that upgrade to be released, and it indeed was like that. Such continuous support is very valuable because it is not a tool that does not progress. They are constantly releasing things and allowing it to grow and cover more functionalities.

There can be an improvement in the area of finance.

I contacted the BMC team here in Lima and mentioned the things that can be improved. For example, S4HANA jobs are something with which BMC has already worked in several companies. Whenever I pull an S4HANA job to the Helix Control-M tool, it pulls it naturally with all the steps. A job can have several steps, and in this case, it is very easy to control the steps taken. However, in the case of the SaaS IBP tool, it can pull the job but cannot identify the steps. So, when I want to take an action in a step, I have to split the job. We are having to work longer because we have to split the jobs from, for example, 52 steps to 12, depending on where I want it to have an action. We would like the tool to be able to identify the steps so that we are not continually splitting them as it generates more executions for me.

The other improvement is that in, for example, S4HANA jobs, when the job fails, you have the status of the job. It recognizes them perfectly. In the case of IBP, it also has status but at a more minimal level. Sometimes the step fails, but the job does not fail. It ends with an error in a step without identifying it for me.

Another thing that we have asked to improve is that Helix Control-M can be integrated with more tools such as Odoo. Odoo is a tool for all these companies that are not with SAP. They use it as a small ERP to generate their sales. Odoo integration will help us receive inventory reports.

The communication and details related to the upgrades that are going to be happening also need improvement.

The implementation began in 2021 and went live in February 2022.

It is a powerful, stable tool.

I have had a very good impression. I have been to the events where BMC shows its new products. I see that there are more things that are going to help a lot. We will be able to get much more out of it.

Alicorp is at several locations and in several countries. These processes have only been launched here in Lima, Peru. They have been divided into the demand planning, distribution, production, and supply areas by the planning team, but it is only done by a team here in Lima. The result is at the national level, but the configuration made in the system is only done in Lima, Peru. Later, we will surely also move internationally.

We started with a small planning team that is gaining confidence in the tool, and the next stage is to cover more areas of the business because currently, it is a small group with a small number of processes being executed. The idea is to make a massive change in the other areas as well, such as the finance department, and then the analytics department. This requires us to look at this implementation from various angles, so we can optimize the dissemination and execute it massively. Before taking that step, we wanted to be in a solid position with the team that is working on Helix Control-M. We wanted to have confidence in what the tool does, and now that we reached that step, the next step is greater use.

Our first-level support is with the GrupoCONTEXT team. They have the knowledge for all cases. There have only been 2 or 3 times where they did not know about the issue and involved BMC. There have only been 3 complex events. There have not been more complex issues. Normally, there are problems when maintenance and upgrades are carried out because sometimes the system changes.

Positive

We previously executed this process manually. It was a third-party company that had 9 people in the early hours. They manually launched one job and then relaunched the other according to a document that we gave them. The document said what things should be done depending on the case that arose. The problem was that there was a lot of shift rotation. For example, if one job ended at 2:00 a.m., in theory, the other should start at 2:01 a.m., but it started at 2:10 or 2:20 a.m. It took 20 to 30 minutes. This time was wasted because the person was not there all the time monitoring. They either made a mistake in launching another job that was not the one we had indicated, or they simply did not launch, which was much worse. So, because of the shift rotation of people, since they were early morning jobs, we constantly had those problems. We had a loss of time, no precision, and a lot of human error.

I was involved in the process of evaluation and implementation, and now, I am also involved in monitoring the development.

Its implementation is among the simplest I have done. SAP tools are more complex. Helix Control-M was live within a short time. We configured it in 2-3 days. We tested it one day, and the next day, it could go live with a process right away.

Our implementation strategy was to divide the implementation into stages. We did it by area and configured the jobs. That was it. We had workshops to understand what the user wanted, and then we did configuration in the test environment to see that what they requested is actually what is being done and executed in that environment. We then moved that to production, so for each user group, we followed: demand, distribution, supply, and production. It was super simple.

In terms of maintenance, from time to time, they notify us that there are upgrades. We receive notifications about agent upgrades, tool upgrades, and some system maintenance. Because it is a SaaS, they tell us everything. We coordinate internally so that if there is a process that is running at that moment, that program is executed manually.

For the server and agent part, we have outsourced the maintenance to the CJG company. They are in charge of doing that maintenance. On the operations side, there is a person in charge. Every time something happens, he is in charge of the event.

For the integration, we received assistance from GrupoCONTEXT. They were in charge of doing all the configuration and programming.

From GrupoCONTEXT, there were two people with constant support from BMC. On our side, there was an architect and a few other people. All the suppliers were contacted so that they were present during configurations, integrations, and testing.

We have seen an ROI. In theory, this third year, we will recover what we invested. It has helped us replace the cost of human resources.

For this tool, as we made the three-year contract, the cost of the licenses is maintained. If we had to hire people for this work, we would have had to increase their salaries every year.

They are expensive. If we were a small company, it would be complicated because we have to have strong sales and operations to be able to afford a tool of this level. Being a large company, the cost-benefit is covered, but it is not within the level of cheap solutions.

The dilemma for us was whether it is worth paying for a monitoring tool or whether it is better to pay people for the work. Helix Control-M was more beneficial because we had problems with manual monitoring, and these problems were expensive.

I was in charge of evaluating all the tools. Because we already had SAP, I first evaluated the SAP tools, such as SAP PI/PO and SolMan. All the SAP tools do these functions. They do them well, but they have limitations. For example, in SolMan, you can monitor and do all the operations, but when it comes to IBP, which is SaaS, it does not work. It is better to not manipulate the programming settings. It is better to leave the standard programming settings because it is simpler.

I was also told to evaluate external tools, so I evaluated Helix Control-M and the IBM solution. Helix Control-M won there. It is the first time that we have used a tool for this type of control. Previously, this work was done manually by a team of people. We used the tools only when monitoring a single platform. For example, for S4HANA, we only used SolMan, but we wanted to integrate several systems and find a solution that does all the activities efficiently and safely.

I would advise you to challenge it. We made an assessment to challenge it to see that it covers all of our use cases and we can trust it. It is a solid tool. Go for it if you can afford it.

The most important lesson that I have learned from using this solution is to not be afraid of automation. Sometimes, because you have been working manually for many years, migrating everything to automatic processes is risky, but I learned to not be afraid of doing this.

In terms of the measurable business impact of Helix Control-M, we are working on that. I just had a meeting with the commercial team on the subject of the month-closing report process. Currently, the month closing process is 5 days, and they want to reduce it to 3, for example. What they have told me is that if orchestrated right, Helix Control-M could help reduce the process time. We are in the middle of the evaluation process to precisely take care of its business impacts. With the finance department, we are evaluating the possibility of reducing time.

Overall, I would rate Helix Control-M a 9 out of 10.

In my organization, I use BMC Control-M as the primary workflow orchestration tool.

we don't use BMC Managed file transfer

Its stability and the feature list are rich compared to other tools in the market. I have experienced a thirty percent reduction in operational time for developers, increasing efficiency in workflow orchestration design. The UI is great, with a minimal learning curve and caters to both click-and-monitor users and those who want to code.

I would love to see REST API integration and more plugins for Google Cloud Platform in addition to AWS and Azure. There are fewer plugins for GCP compared to the other two major cloud providers, which I think would add flexibility for customers whose choice is  GCP.

I have been working with BMC Control-M for around 16 years in different roles.

BMC Control-M is stable, and my experience with it has been positive.

Control-M scales well but EM stays on a single VM. I would love to see the components split up as containers of to multiple Virtual Machines.

Support is pretty good for priority tickets, although there is a lot of back-and-forth communication for low-priority ones. I would still rate it as a eight out of ten.

Positive

Control-M was always the go-to workflow orchestration solution where I work.We have checked out Rundeck open source and Apache Airflow for certain use cases. I also know friends in different organizations using Autosys, UC4, and Atomic, but nothing matches Control-M's capabilities.

Installation is straightforward, and there is ample documentation and customer support from BMC is helpful too in troubleshooting issues. Configuration could get highly complex based on your environment, but default configuration is easy and works well.

For deployment, one person with good OS and application knowledge and good should do with a little help from a database administrators. Two is an optimal number to maintain and run.

Negotiate based on task and ask for a better price where non prod tasks could be charged a lower price.

Control-m was there before I started working in the current organisation , Fow now, we haven't checked any vendor-based tools.

I would rate BMC Control-M a nine out of ten. Build self service portals using the existing API endpoints to make provisioning easier.

In my previous organization, which was in the banking domain, most of the Control-M jobs were related to finance, including SAP, file processing, and payroll generation. Currently, I am working in the healthcare industry, where Control-M is used mostly for claim settlement and process flows.

The most valuable feature is the automation process. Manual tasks like scanning claims at a hospital or dispensary are automated with Control-M, greatly reducing time and effort for processing and saving data. This process previously consumed a lot of time when done manually.

Most improvements are related to cloud connectivity. It would be beneficial to have cloud integration tools for services like AWS and Azure. Currently, batch flows integrate through modules but don't connect directly, which could be enhanced for better efficiency.

I have around 13.5 years of experience in both scheduling and administration with Control-M.

There are no stability issues mentioned, and everything is automated. In case of application failure, I get involved, otherwise, the monitoring team takes care of the operations.

The support was better previously. Nowadays, the support is less responsive and accurate, unlike the past ten years when the solutions and responses were much more reliable.

Negative

Other tools I compare with include AWS, Redwood, and TWS. However, Control-M stands out due to its user-friendly graphical interface, unlike TWS, which is command-based and hard to use.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the initial setup of Control-M a ten out of ten due to my familiarity with the tool. However, some users face difficulties with the web interface.

I am the architect along with two other team members who work with Control-M. We handle design, including servers, databases, and connections.

Other solutions considered include AWS, Redwood, and TWS.

I would definitely recommend Control-M because it is a reliable tool expected to remain relevant for the next twenty to thirty years. I rate it ten out of ten.

Control-M is a job scheduler. You can schedule FTP jobs or use scripts within Control-M. You can also execute commands when necessary to schedule, or you can just run a script that is hosted on a server. Based on the schedule, you can orchestrate or automate jobs. You can set dependencies between jobs. You can correlate and create a sequence of your jobs and execute them in the order you wish. You can set the variables and options that you like. You can set the prerequisites and post-job activities after the completion, such as reports analysis, emails, etc.

Helix Control-M is critical for us. If we do not have a job scheduler like this, we will have to have people running 366 different jobs on a daily basis and 24 hours a day. These are the jobs that we run from midnight to midnight every single day on a scheduled basis.

I do not use Helix Control-M's Python client or Airflow. I am using the web client. I do not create jobs. I give my users access to create their own jobs. I just maintain the agents and keep the administration going. When they have questions, they come up to me and ask. We just use the web interface to go into the planning mode and create our jobs, folders, dependencies, etc.

Control-M has helped to give business users visibility and control over their jobs. Both Control-M and Helix Control-M allow me to give users control over their own set of jobs. They can log in and orchestrate their jobs as they want. They can also troubleshoot them on their own. It makes that easy. I just have to be hands-off and stand by in case they need assistance, but once the tool is deployed and every agent is up and running, it is easy. The people who have the jobs running or the job scheduled know about their own jobs. They know their own demands. They have control over the decision of when they are going to run it and how they are going to run it. It makes it very simple, and it helps.

You can set up your users and define whether they have admin privileges or they can just affect a set of jobs.

The fact that it is all centralized in the web browser makes it easily accessible from everywhere. All my users are IT people. They do different things. They do databases. They do informatics. They do development and things of that nature. To business users, such as board members of the company, we can give them reports on, for example, how the business closed and how much profits were there, or if all the transactions were submitted to the bank on time. If not, what were they missing? We can provide all things of that nature. We can pull it all up in a report and then schedule it on a daily basis or weekly basis. It is simple.

There have been cost savings with Helix Control-M. The license that the company was paying for Control-M, including support, was three grand more expensive than Helix Control-M. With Control-M, we also had to have an administrator dedicated to maintaining Control-M on-premises. That cost of having a person dedicated to doing just Control-M jobs is gone after we moved to the cloud. We are not only getting more money in savings; we are also making a better distribution and use of our time. By not having a dedicated person, we are saving a couple of grand. We are saving on the license and, of course, resources. We do not have to have dedicated resources such as servers. We do it virtually. We do not need to have resources reserved for the server and database. I just have to deploy the agent, which can run multiple instances in my cluster. They can share resources, which is another saving there.

In Helix Control-M, we have the automation API that allows us to customize and do integrations easily in any script, such as Java or Python. It is all integrated within the integration API.

Every year, they add another set of automation or compatibility with different applications. They are capable of integrating with Informatica, AWS, etc. You can schedule queries directly from Control-M on databases without having a server or agent. You can do scan jobs or queries directly. Every other month, they are doing releases, and they have tons of new integrations, which makes it compatible with more and more applications around the cloud.

They have a department that handles requests for enhancements. I talked to Control-M guys back in October or November when they had a gathering here in Atlanta. We talked about not being able to go back in history in Helix Control-M for more than two weeks. We submitted a request for enhancement. They told us that they are working on it, and they are thinking of expanding that to 30 days. We would like to see it expand to 90 days, but they are working on it. In Control-M, we were able to go back 180 days, but that was on-prem. The storage of that data was on our own servers. We know that storage is money, and we do not expect them to store that much of the data, but at least 30 to 60 days seem proper.

Community Loans of America has been using Control-M since version 6. It has been at least 10 years.

I have not had any downtime with Helix Control-M. All the upgrades are scheduled, and they give us a time window when they think they are going to schedule them, and we adjust. I have not seen anybody notice it. The jobs get held before the update, and they start automatically after the update. If anybody noticed it, that was because I had to tell them that a maintenance window was coming up and to be aware of it.

I contacted their support a couple of times to ask them about an error that I did not understand. They have three guys who are pretty handy. When you ask questions, you, of course, have to wait at least 24 hours for someone to respond. They are pretty fast. Most of my queries were responded to within the same day, which is great. I would, for sure, rate their support a solid 10 out of 10.

Positive

We were just using Control-M. We did not have any other scheduler. We migrated from Control-M to Helix Control-M. 

Control-M is on-premises, and it requires a dedicated administrator. Control-M has three major pieces. It has a Control-M server. It has a main agent, and it has a database. If you have HA, you will have the same things at a secondary location, so you will have to manage the cluster and make sure that all the pieces are working together. If, for some reason, one side fails, HA tries to recover in the second location. The management or the administration side of things is a challenge. It requires a dedicated person. Our main Control-M guy left us six years ago. Every time we had an issue with Control-M, it took us three or four hours to put it back where it should be. By migrating to Helix Control-M, our biggest success was getting away from the administration. Having Helix Control-M, which is a cloud product, allows us to use all the advantages of the job scheduler without handling the administration of our own servers.

If I compare Helix Control-M with what I had to do on Control-M on-prem, the process is very similar. The calendar has changed though. There was an advantage with Control-M that you could specify when was your new day load. Our new day load was every day at 9 AM in the morning. With Helix Control-M, we have to have only midnight as a new load because of the change of the date. It was a big challenge because we had to reorchestrate all the jobs to suit the new day load being moved from 9 AM to midnight. 

Essentially, scheduling a job or creating a new job requires the same effort in both applications. The advantage of Helix Control-M is that I do not depend on a single agent to pull FTP profiles. All of them are centralized. It does not matter which agent I am using. I have access to the whole list. In Control-M, FTP profiles had to be added to the agents that were being used. Helix Control-M has made it easy to orchestrate data pipelines in production because now, I do not have to worry about the whole backend of Control-M. I am sure that it is up to date, and I can log in reliably, load jobs, and orchestrate them as I need.

I once tried to migrate Control-M to something else called RunMyJobs. Compared to RunMyJobs, I would definitely go for Helix Control-M.

In terms of our environment, we are a mixed shop. The majority of our products are on-prem. We have a Nutanix cluster in our data center, and that is where we host the majority of our things. We have maybe one or two devices on AWS. For Azure, I know that we have a license because it comes with our enterprise Microsoft 365 license, but I do not recall having any hosting there.

For migration, they have a migration tool that makes it very easy. You can run this migration tool, and it will export all your current jobs in a JSON file. It will try to import them on the tenant in the cloud on Helix Control-M. We faced a few challenges here and there because at the time we did it, some features were missing in Helix Control-M or were not supported, but they were supported in Control-M. We used to have dual endpoint profiles for the MSP file transfer or the ASP. FTP jobs have profiles where the server address, user password, or key gets stored. In Control-M, you could have a single profile with two endpoints. You could have Host A and Host B in a single profile. That was not supported with Helix Control-M at the time we decided to migrate, so we had the challenge of converting all those dual endpoint profiles into single endpoint profiles to be able to be imported. I know for a fact now that it is no longer an issue because they now allow you to create dual endpoint profiles in Helix Control-M, but it was a challenge at the time.

Fixing things here and there and making it compatible took about six months. Those six months were not just because of how hard it was to migrate. It was a combination of the challenges of migration and other tasks that we have not been doing because we could not afford to have a person dedicated entirely only to Control-M. Effectively, the time dedicated exclusively to the migration was two and a half months, but the migration was distributed in a six-month calendar because of other duties and tasks that I had to perform.

We got help from VPMA. VPMA is our reseller. We purchased a license of Control-M through VPMA, and they have support and all that. We get help from them. They helped us to run the Orchestrator or the migration tool from BMC. They told us where the odd points were, and then we went to do it on our own. We came back and reviewed them again and kept fixing them.

Overall, we had three people. We had one person from VPMA, and then there was me and one of my technicians to assist me.

It is not bad. The company can afford it, and it pays for itself. We have those jobs running automatically.

I would rate Helix Control-M a 10 out of 10. I like Helix Control-M. 

We predominantly use Control-M SAP R3 jobs. That's our primary batch job load with external vendors and internally on our AWS instance. That's our batch load alongside a few custom integrations. They are not public applications. It's all in-house applications. We have integrations and API integrations for the API hubs, which speak to multiple other applications within our next case.

We also use MFT enterprise for secured file transfer and management.

It isn't the only point of failure, but Control-M handles our business-critical, priority-one applications. We have other options. Control-M runs the SAP side for all batches. The time needed to realize the benefits depends on the scale and complexity. 

One use case was in health care and involved shipment orders. With Control-M controlling the workflow, we could effectively monitor it and forecast any delays. This enabled us to deliver critical products in under four hours across hospitals in the network. 

We can apply the same standards and run the same set of jobs across environments. Once they are tested in the non-production environment, we can move them seamlessly to the production environment. 

We have a nightly process of batch reports. Before Control-M, we spent around 12 hours manually scheduling reports in SAP. After streamlining the process, we reduced manual work to nine and a half hours. The business could update all the processes before midnight.

While it doesn't totally free up IT personnel, it provides visibility into self-service tools where business users can see their pipelines or job streams. It would be read-only access for the business side, but to take action on the job, they still need to contact the IT team. 

Control-M doesn't facilitate collaboration between business and IT users, but It provides a better user experience. Both parties can see what they are talking about, so there's no black zone for any of the parties. Before Control-M, the functional team had a particular nomenclature to relate what they had seen on Control-M. With the self-service tool, they can simply relay the job name. The collaboration starts there, and it builds over with a lot of other parameters.

Control-M provides a centralized view of our enterprise workload. As the owner, I can access my dashboard and see the status of jobs across the enterprise. It is strong at integrating with different applications and creating a pipeline of dependencies across applications on different operating systems. 

When it comes to developments where we have to move across regions or environments, it seamlessly integrates and adapts to different regions. Regarding integration with the DevOps pipeline, it allows us to use a JSON file and promote it across environments easily. 

We use Control-M to deploy workflows for DataOps and DevOps initiatives. It allows us to quickly test workflows or configuration changes without much manual effort. We add the JSON file for the conversation parameters and let the system handle the schedule. Integrating other DevOps tools within the journey gives us the management perspective and approval of multiple pipelines.

I'm currently working on the SaaS version, but I've also worked on the on-prem versions before. There is a handful of features that haven't been added to the SaaS version, and the BMC knows that. It's a matter of time before they prioritize the missing pieces and bring them into the SaaS version. 

I started using Control-M back in 2008

Control-M has the best stability in the market. They claim 99.99 percent availability. It's hardly four hours of downtime throughout the year.

Control-M is infinitely scalable. We only need to add agents. BMC will take care of it if you need anything on the SaaS side, but we can handle the rest using our agent architecture.

I rate BMC support 10 out of 10. They are stringent about their SLA timelines. They respond on time, and if it's a priority one, they will call immediately. 

Positive

We previously used the SAP Scheduler and adopted Dollar Universe. All our local manual efforts ran in  Windows Scheduler.

It was a greenfield approach, and I was there from day one as a consultant. Deploying Control-M can be easy or difficult, depending on what the business needs. It takes a while to understand the infrastructure setup our business needs and the number of jobs we need to run through this application. 

It took a while to understand the infrastructure setup we require. We had to understand the number of jobs running through this application and how business-critical they are. The documentation BMC provides is top-notch and covers every step we must follow. 

Migrating to Control-M is a bit tricky in terms of preparing the data and having the right tool to convert required parameters into a Control-M-ready job. Control-M has a feature called AMIGO that helps us migrate from the existing source.  Converting a job and loading it into our Control-M format isn't straightforward. We must do some prerecorded checks and setups before. 

There is some maintenance in the form of updating agents and deploying patches on the SAP application. Since it's a SaaS application, BMC handles most of the maintenance on the server side. 

The license model is based on the number of jobs we run on the SaaS application or the number of executions, unlike the on-premise model options. If we have a handful of jobs, it's always good to consider Control-M, but if it's a large number of jobs, Control-M might not be a great option. 

Control-M enables us to consolidate our jobs, and it helps us have a uniform approach and schedule. It helps to have the audit logs available. The scheduler space is nice in terms of control. 

We attempted to leverage ActiveBatch by Redwood and a few other options, but Control-M had all the features we needed. It gives us a 360-degree view of our implementation across silos. The architectural requirements also vary depending on the criticality of the applications. 

Control-M allows us to customize the job templates for any application we need, which covers all our future plans. Its integration speed is excellent because it has templates for every application. 

I rate Control-M 10 out of 10. New users will be fine if they follow the Control-M documentation. There's also a book you can buy on Amazon called "Batch Scheduling" that comprehensively covers batch operations and how BMC has evolved over time. 

We schedule the majority of our SAP jobs Control-M. We do that globally for all the production plants. We have tens of thousands of SAP jobs and managed file transfer.

SAP batch and managed file transfer are critical processes that we have automated. We are in the process of replacing Connect:Direct and SecureTransport, the legacy file transfer solution, with Managed File Transfer (MFT). That is on the global scale. 

The Control-M for Informatica is gaining a lot of popularity, primarily in the financial side of the business. They have a lot of security restrictions that make their jobs very difficult. Also, there are cost issues for Informatica, e.g., anytime they execute a workflow in Informatica, they get billed for it. We are adapting the solution to not scrum the workflow every half an hour or hour because they pay for it, but only when it is needed. Therefore, we can do a database query and check if there are new records that need to be processed. If there are no records to be processed, then depending on that output, we either run the Informatica job or leave it and check again for maybe half an hour. We are optimizing, saving money for the customers and ourselves, while reducing the number of executions, jobs, etc.

We are using on-premises. We have been for many years. We are aware of the new Helix offering, which is a SaaS/cloud offering from BMC, but it is not really ready for enterprise yet, not at our scale. We are doing some cloud, though not the Helix offering. I have installations in the cloud using Azure and AWS. We are not fully functioning there yet. We are waiting for the demand, but we are aware of the cloud opportunities and making use of them.

We have been busy upgrading to version 9.0.20 Fix Pack 100 but our production environment is still on 9.0.19 Fix Pack 200.

We use Control-M as part of our DevOps automation toolchains and leverage its “as-code” interfaces for developers. We have found that a lot of the new customers who are developing for cloud prefer to use the API and would like to test for themselves. That is really where Jobs-as-Code comes in. They can test and fail quickly the agile way. We definitely have some customers who are using that.

We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability. Because data transfers are part of the Control-M tool, they form as part of the normal workflow. We see the value in that.

If they have ad hoc requirements, then they can theoretically schedule their own file transfers with the Self Service. We are trying to push as much work back to the customers or developers that have that requirement, because they prefer to help themselves, if possible. We try empowering them and enabling them through Control-M, especially for file transfers, because it is a much broader base of the business then just with batch scheduling. Typically, with SAP batch scheduling, it would work with dedicated teams. With file transfers, the entire business is involved. There are business users, end users, etc. It definitely needs to be as simple as possible and as managed as well as possible. They need to manage it themselves, if possible, because our team is not growing but the number of customers, applications, and jobs are growing. We need to hand back some of the responsibility to the customer for them to resolve and action it.

A new feature, which we deployed about two years ago, is the Managed File Transfer (MFT). We also use Managed File Transfer Enterprise (MFTE) for external transfers of our biggest use cases. 

Another valuable feature would definitely be the MFT dashboard that is now available in Control-M natively. It is easy to just search for jobs, files, etc. Instead of the customers contacting us to find out what happened, when it happened, and why it happened, they are able to service themselves. This allows us to cut down on operational staff, costs, and time because customers can manage it themselves to a degree.

The most valuable feature is definitely the Self Service. A couple of years ago, it was available, but not with the features that it is today. There wasn't really uptake on it, although it was available. We have seen a steady growth in the number of users using it and what they are using it to do. They are using Self Service to schedule by themselves and do monitoring by themselves. They interact with their schedules. Also, the performance of Self Service is very user-friendly and more accessible. That is one of the features that we use a lot lately.

The reporting has definitely improved over the years. We are definitely doing more of that as well. We are definitely seeing more value in reporting on the batch schedules, optimizing it and seeing if we can cut costs. 

The reporting has improved. It is not where it should be yet, but we have seen improvements. The biggest thing for me is the restrictions regarding templates for reporting. You can't create your report with your own parameters. We have a meeting weekly with BMC and our customer lifecycle architect, and this comes up quite frequently. We have been privileged enough to do work with the developers. They are aware of the requirements regarding reporting and what our customers are asking for.

What I found lately about the YouTube videos, specifically, is that they are very simple. Usually, when I watch a video, I would read the manual, instructions, etc. to see if I understand it. I would hope that the interactive sessions, Q&As, or videos could be used to handle more complex issues of what they're discussing. An example would be the LDAP authentication for the Enterprise Manager. They would typically just go through the steps that are in the documentation. What people typically looking at those videos are looking for is how to do the more complex setup, doing it with SSL and distributed Active Directory data mines. Things that are not documented. I find those videos helpful for somebody who is too lazy to read the manual. I expect them to handle more than what is available in the documentation and the more complex situations.

The high availability that comes from BMC with its supplied Postgres database is very limited. Even using your customer-supplied Postgres database is problematic. We have engaged with them regarding this, but it is difficult. My company doesn't want to do this and BMC doesn't want to do that. We just need to find some middle ground to get the proper high availability.
We're also moving away, like the rest of the world, from the more expensive offerings, like Oracle. We are trying to use Postgres, which is free. The stability is good. It is just that the high availability configuration is not ideal. It could be better.

I have been using Control-M for 12 years.

Control-M is really stable. We have seen that throughout the years. I have had customers who have been running version 6.3 for seven years after support stopped. It has been running for three years straight, without a reboot or restart, doing its job. We have actually had issues with customers who don't want to upgrade. They have said, "This stuff is working perfectly. Just leave it alone because it just doesn't go down." 

We have a saying in our department as well. When somebody says there is a problem, we say, "It's not Control-M. Check everything else. Check the server, network, and database. It's not Control-M." 99 out of 100 times, we are right. It is either infrastructure or something else, but it is not Control-M.

I have never run into any problems scaling, either vertically or horizontally, with Control-M. In each version, it just gets better. I am really happy with that.

We were one of probably the first companies who bought MFTE, and it was not ready yet. It didn't scale properly. It didn't offer the functionality that the competing tools that we were currently using had. It's grown tremendously because of our input and feedback directly to the developers and BMC. I'm not complaining about it, but it put us back a bit. We have learned not to be a very early adopter. We have seen the same with the cloud. Everybody wants to jump on the cloud, but nobody knows why. They just want to do Cloud. We've made a substantial investment with MFTE. It was a couple of hundred thousand euros, and it was not ready yet for our enterprise requirements.

Our monitoring team who does 24/7 monitoring. They handle the alerts. They check their job flows. They make sure escalations are going through. If tickets need to be logged, make sure that gets done. They also interact with ad hoc requests from customers. 

There is the scheduling team who does the job definitions, updates, etc. 

There is the administration team, which I'm part of, with administrators who look after the infrastructure, Enterprise Manager, servers, agents, gateways, etc. Recently, we also have a dedicated MFT team that only looks after MFT because of the huge number of customers, requests, and requirements.

Other customers who use it are really all across the board. We had a presentation last week to our bigger department that is worldwide, but which we are a part of in South Africa. We have noticed about 52 main departments, then the sub-departments, between them. A lot of them sit right across the enterprise. Typically, the most active users would be SAP users who checks for output on the jobs running on Control-M. It is just 10 times easier to do it in Control-M than on SAP itself. We also manage to keep the output for longer than SAP. What they can't find on SAP after seven or 14 days, they can usually find with us, e.g., outputs for the jobs or logs. 

There are the MFT users who love being able to see each morning that their file was transferred, how long it took, and how big the file was. A lot of self-service users are using the Self Service function. Team leads and operational staff use it most.

I love support and the support people. It is very good. Because we are quite a mature customer and the whole team has a lot of experience (sometimes more than the support people), if they don't realize the seriousness of the situation, then we would not escalate but just to make our customer lifecycle architect aware by saying, "We are not feeling this case is getting the required personnel on it. We need somebody more senior. We don't have time to cover the basics that the first line support is trying to deal with. We've been over that." Overall, I would rate the technical support as nine out of 10.

Previously, we used a big SAP solution, which was not a commercial, and specifically designed for our company.

We have recently taken over a mainframe migration as well as the scheduling was on TWS, which is IBM's scheduling software on the mainframe z/OS. We moved that all over to Control-M. That was a combination of SAP jobs, Informatica jobs, database jobs, and normal script jobs. So, we use a bit of everything. We have also used the automation API a lot for interfacing with Control-M and other middleware tools, but primarily it is SAP and file transfer.

We use Control-M to integrate file transfers within our application workflows. It integrates with the tools that we are replacing, i.e., Connect:Direct, which is quite a legacy tool, and our old IBM tool, which we have been using for more than 15 years and has no visibility. With Control-M, you get visibility on your file transfers and how it mostly interacts with your batch schedule. Something gets created, it's sent over, and then it gets processed. Control-M has already been part of the executing, extracting, import, or processing. Now, with the file transfer, customers can see the entire workflow from the data being generated, transferred, and processed. This resolves a lot of complexities because you used to need to contact three different teams to find out if the file arrived and was processed. One tool does all of that now.

There isn't a lot of new functionality that our previous tools didn't have. It is just re-consolidating all the tools that we need into a single one. That makes it much simpler. There is one team to contact globally for file transfers, and that makes it easy. It provides visibility with its Self Service that wasn't available with Connect:Direct or SecureTransport. Our customers are quite happy to have that. We can also provide reports. 

SecureTransport competes with MFTE. There isn't a conversion tool for that yet. Connect:Direct simply provides the means for a conversion tool, but it gets integrated into scripts and applications. It's very difficult to migrate or extract that data.

The initial setup is straightforward. It changed a lot over the years as well, but in the nicest way. You have minimal downtime with the upgrades on Enterprise Manager as well as the Control-M servers. A lot of preparation is done before the tool is shut down for the upgrade. Our downtime used to be at least an hour for upgrades or migrations. That has typically come down to 10, 15, or 20 minutes, depending on the size of the server. It is definitely more stable and understandable.

We have also noticed that the exception handling is much better if there are issues. We don't get that many surprises. The errors are understandable. The agent upgrades have zero downtime, so that is just amazing. All the patching and maintenance is centralized. We have migrated our development and integration environments to 9.0.20 in the last month or two. That went very smoothly. We will start with production next week. We have been through this quite a number of times. We came from version 7 to version 9 to versions 9.0.19 and 9.0.20. We do all the upgrades in-house.

We do it all ourselves. If we get stuck, we would contact BMC. At my previous job, we were a partner for BMC in South Africa, and I was on the support side for BMC. It is only we need to open tickets for bugs or problems that we contact BMC. Typically, upgrades and migrations, we handle those in-house.

There are three people full-time on the administrative side. We have a global setup: Europe, Mexico, America, Africa, and China. We have tons of virtual machines and hundreds and hundreds of agents, and even more that we might host.

I know we have already budgeted for more tasks. The company is very happy with the performance of our teams, specifically the South African team. We are really doing more with good tools and less people. There is definitely a return on investment, just from the stability and visibility which has improved a lot.

On the effort side, we have definitely seen a lot of savings. We have some bigger projects that are automating the schedule and removing human intervention. These have reduced department staff/headcount, by about 50%, when we were able to automate the batch side of it, because also our department offers monitoring and operations as part of our service. We have a dedicated monitoring team. Whatever runs in Control-M, that is monitored by us and escalated, if needed. 

Departments now have multiple scheduling tools between the mainframe, distributed systems, and cloud. Control-M brings all of that, e.g., we have it on a single pane of glass so we can see the exact execution on the mainframe, the execution on the line, and the execution in the cloud. This is instead of using three or four different tools. Therefore, the complexity of batch monitoring and scheduling has decreased as well with the standardization of Control-M. That is definitely one of the big advantages that we have seen.

It is expensive. We have a lot of customers who complained initially about the costs. Because it's not just the licensing, unfortunately. It's the infrastructure, salaries, etc. I like the licensing model. It is pretty straightforward. We are on the task license. I know that we have some really good discounts. Our BMC account manager makes sure that we stay below the license count as well as checking for growth. Overall, it's good. The licensing is simple enough for me. It is a bit expensive. Especially with the cloud coming in, we might see the licensing change in the future, but I'm guessing.

This is now from my previous years as support for banks and big companies. If it's not enterprise scale, I find that it's too expensive for smaller companies. You really have to be quite big and need to have a dedicated support staff to run it, then you'll be fine. What we've seen at smaller companies, it's too expensive because they want to automate everything. Now, stuff that can literally run once a day for the rest of their lives is costing them $3 a job a day. It becomes too expensive, eventually. They are not seeing the return on investment because it's not business critical. Nobody is going to die or they're going to lose money if that job didn't run exactly at 11 minutes past 4:00. It's definitely for bigger enterprise companies, especially banks or healthcare providers. We have had an instance where Control-M was unavailable due to external factors for 20 minutes and there was a loss of almost a million euros because the solution involved logistics. 

We have done the usual crontab migration. Everything is in crontab or Windows Scheduler. Typically, we end up with a migration, even if it's from a known tool, where we end by exporting it into Excel and converting it into job definitions with a script. We have been involved in that, but nothing using BMC tools.

When I joined the company, I first supported them through the local partner. Because we have such a vast array of scheduling tools, they went through a PoC and business case. We evaluated three or four tools, where BMC Control-M was one. Quite soon, because the company was already using Control-M in Africa and China, they were looking for global solutions to see if it really could create change.  

What it came down to was ease of use, enterprise capability, and BMC was already in the company with ITSM and a couple of other products as well. They had a good relationship with us. We consulted with other customers who have used it as well as references because it was expensive. It was definitely the most expensive solution then, out of the four. However, we didn't want to go five years down the line and then have to change again because of issues.

We have had a very good run with Control-M. I love it.

With the move to big data and especially with our AWS Cloud presence, we have a data lake. We are in discussions with the analytics teams about how they can utilize Control-M in the cloud for analytics, big data, etc. However, at the moment, it is not a big deal.

What we have found with the Jobs-as-Code is that customers need to understand Control-M better, how the scheduling works, the knowledge around it, its conditions, etc. It took some time for the developers to get used to Control-M, then Jobs-as-Code. They are now confident with it. We are presenting twice weekly. We have an open forum for interested parties about Control-M or our department, Enterprise Scheduling and File Transfer, where we have a dedicated session about Jobs-as-Code. If there are questions about how other departments are doing it, if there is a better way to do it, if they are able to save on the number of jobs, can we make them rerun, or instead of creating 10 jobs, can it be done with five jobs? So, there is not a lot going from Jobs-as-Code directly into production, but we have a couple of parties, especially on the cloud front, who are very interested in it.

The solution is enterprise scale. Also, if you want to integrate all your applications into one view and offer all the functionality across the board, such as file transfer, scheduling, cloud, and on-prem, then you can create your own application integrations to integrate with applications that's not supported currently by BMC, like APIs. For top 100 enterprises, there isn't another better tool on the market for enterprise.

I would rate it as a nine out of 10.

We use Control-M to schedule jobs in it, to run critical business processes as batches. We also use it to transfer files from one location to the other. We use it for reporting and to monitor critical batches that are running in the business.

The best feature of Control-M is the UI, the user interface. It is very user-friendly, and it has ease of use for an end user. I appreciate the centralized monitoring capability of this application where with one glance, we can get all the information. We don't need to run here and there for getting the information. Its main feature, the Batch Impact Manager feature in Control-M, is the best by far to monitor all the critical batches in one place.

BMC could do better in the reporting capabilities of Control-M. Currently, what they have is very limited in reporting. We may have some work going in place in the reporting area so that they can give more customized reports for users.

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

Control-M is mostly stable. It doesn't require regular maintenance, unlike other applications. It's stable, and we don't face any regular issues with the application unless something breaks over the network or on the server level. At the application level, we have very few issues even from the past few years.

Control-M has the capability to integrate with many other applications, so it's really scalable in that area. It even has the application integrator facility to talk to any other application that has the REST capability. It's more scalable in that aspect.

We have reached out to BMC a lot of times. They are good, but this is an honest opinion, the service for Control-M has had a slight downfall in recent times. It used to be very good in the past few years, but now they have slightly degraded service in terms of delay in response and the way they ask questions. They are asking repetitive questions even though we've provided the information to them. That's what I felt based on my past few cases with them. Overall, they are good but not very good.

Positive

I have used another scheduling tool, Autosys, but not to an extreme extent. Compared to Autosys, Control-M is by far the best. Control-M's capabilities to integrate with other platforms, such as SAP, AWS, and various web services, make it stand out among competitors. Control-M excels in these integrations and offers superior functionality. Additionally, I appreciate the user interface of Control-M; it is one of the features I like the most about the application. It's truly well-designed and user-friendly.

It was already deployed before I joined the organization. Learning to use Control-M is very user-friendly, unlike other scheduling tools in the market. The setup is very easy. We have all the documentation and required support videos available on YouTube in the official channel of BMC Control-M. Following the guide, we can easily set up the application. For use, we have a huge knowledge base in their support central page where we can search for anything, and we can find the solution for most things. If something is not there, then we can reach out to their support by logging in a case with them, and we will get a response with all the details. The features are there with good names, not confusing the user about why the feature was there or what's the use of it. It's very easy to use, all in one.

In terms of maintenance, we are the administrator, and we manage the application.

I'm not involved in any sales discussions related to Control-M, but I'll give my general opinion. I heard that Control-M is a bit pricey compared to other competitors. Given its features and capabilities, I think that's justified.

My relationship with BMC regarding Control-M is more transformative. We usually talk to them about the cases. For product-related discussions, if they need some information or reports from our end, we were involved and were over the calls talking with them. For all the critical cases that we raised with them, we were on the call discussing all the technical aspects. It was all good. 

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

We can recommend it for all domains, such as banking, insurance, or telecom. Whatever the customer needs, it can handle without any issues and is highly secure for file transfers. It supports all transfer protocols and methods and can integrate with external MFT solutions from different providers. Control-M will fulfill all requirements.

Whether distributed or mainframe jobs generate files, they use Control-M for file transfers. However, if they are not using Edge jobs or any JIT process outside of the Control-M schedule, those areas do not use Control-M. However, distributed or mainframe jobs generate files that need to be transferred to another system using Control-M.

We use encryption detection methods and various monitoring methods to check files and ensure they meet all business criteria. If a zero-byte file is detected, we can handle it. We use file watchers to monitor and transfer files between source and target, whether the environment is homogeneous or heterogeneous, on-prem to cloud or cloud to on-prem.

Improvements could be made in naming conventions, such as adding dates and timestamps to filenames after replacing them. While the auto-delete function exists, enhancing it further could be beneficial. For example, when using SSH or WMA connections to transfer files, more detailed logs could be provided, specifying exactly where issues occurred. A pre-transfer check that warns if the file size is too large for the available target server space could be useful. 

These enhancements are expected to be included in the upcoming 9.0.22 version of BMC Control-M.

I have been using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for five years.

Control-M allows team members to manage file transfers without any file size limit as long as the target server has sufficient space. If the target server lacks the necessary space, the transfer will fail with an error indicating insufficient space. 

The tool itself does not impose any restrictions on file size, so you can transfer files of any size without limitation, provided there is adequate space on the target server.

BMC technical support is highly effective and responsive to concerns and questions. With the hybrid model, including BMC Helix Control-M MFT and BMC OneCloud, they support SaaS solutions, managing all patching, installations, and maintenance tasks. Using Helix, BMC can open necessary ports for customers, ensuring seamless access to the Helix environment. This approach minimizes the need for customers to handle patching and advanced maintenance themselves. BMC also ensures high availability and performs all required updates and support, providing a streamlined experience for users.

Positive

Currently, we have a B2B webMethods MFT solution for file transfers and script-based file transfers with specific security commands. Script-based methods offer limited GUI and tracking features. 

We have not used them extensively in the last six or seven years. Since adopting Control-M, we have transitioned all non-standard file transfer methods to Control-M, which provides more comprehensive features and tracking capabilities.

We are not paying separately for MFT. It comes included with the contract, license, and software package. In addition to Control-M, we also use Informatica and other control modules. The MFT functionality is automatically included with the software package, so it has no separate cost.

Control-M is not just for file transfer; it integrates with all file-related jobs in downstream systems, including file generation, file transfer, and file usage. These processes run smoothly together, allowing us to meet KPH, PAs, and VNSLS SLAs. If you use a different tool for MFT, without proper control, there could be time delays. This might require adding buffer time between the file generation, file transfer, and file usage jobs, causing delays. With Control-M, there won't be any delays, as all three jobs run together seamlessly, ensuring no time lapse.

Compared to script-based or other file transfer methods, Control-M offers a more streamlined process that doesn’t require extra support for file transfer tasks. Those managing the Control-M tool can handle file transfers and perform necessary checks. The integration includes a web or self-service portal, allowing customers to track file transfers and check their status, even from a web view. Unlike other tools where only the production support or technical team can monitor file transfers, Control-M allows users with appropriate credentials to verify whether a file transfer was successful.

This is especially beneficial for reporting tool users like PowerBI, Cognos, or BusinessOptics, where data files are transferred from the source system to the reporting tool. Report users who refresh data manually can check if the file transfer was successful and, if necessary, rerun the job, ensuring their reports are updated on time without needing support from the technical team.

Control-M offers excellent file management. In my current customer environment, more than 90% of file transfers are handled by Control-M, with only 5% to 10% done using internal mechanisms within AWS or Azure for cloud-specific transfers. For transfers within AWS, between applications, a small portion of the files is transferred outside Control-M. However, most file transfers go through Control-M, and the customer is satisfied because they don't need to pay extra for the product or support team. Control-M also handles email service and business view integration, allowing users to monitor and resolve file size, space, network, protocol, certification, and public key problems on-premises without additional support.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.