Control-M Reviews

I have been working with Control-M for about six months as part of my role. During this time, I have mainly used it for monitoring and managing batch jobs and automated workflows.

Our main use case for Control-M is managing and monitoring batch workflows across different systems. We use it to schedule jobs that run scripts, database processes, and ETL-related tasks. We make sure they execute in the correct order based on dependencies. On a daily basis, I mostly work with monitoring job runs, checking job statuses, and troubleshooting failures when a job does not complete successfully. We also review logs, rerun jobs when needed, and make sure the workflows complete within the expected time windows. Control-M helps centralize all this so we can track and manage automation more efficiently instead of handling tasks manually.

One of the examples for centralized monitoring in Control-M is the ability to view the status of all the scheduled jobs from a single dashboard. Instead of checking multiple systems individually, we can see whether jobs are running, completed successfully, or failed in one place. For example, if a job that runs a database script fails during the night schedule, we can quickly identify the failure from the monitoring interface, review the logs, and rerun the job if needed. This helps the team respond faster and keep the workflow running smoothly.

One of the best features of Control-M is its ability to manage complex job scheduling and dependencies across different systems from a single platform. It makes it much easier to automate workflows and monitor job execution in real-time. The centralized monitoring and alerting help us quickly identify failures and take action, which improves reliability and reduces manual effort.

Control-M has had a positive impact by improving the automation and reliability in our batch processing workflows. It helps ensure that jobs run in the correct sequence and reduces the need for manual intervention. The monitoring and alerting features have also made it easier to detect failures early and resolve issues quickly, so it helps keep our scheduled processes running smoothly.

One area that could be improved is the user interface. While the platform is very powerful, the UI can sometimes feel complex for new users, and it may take time to become familiar with all the features. Improving it and making the navigation more intuitive would help teams adopt it more quickly.

Another improvement could be simplifying the initial setup configuration process for organizations that are implementing Control-M for the first time.

I have been employed for almost four years, approximately three years and ten months.

Control-M is definitely stable. In my experience, once workflows and jobs are properly configured, it runs reliably and handles scheduled processes consistently. Most issues we encountered are usually related to the jobs themselves rather than the platform, and the monitoring tool helps identify and resolve them quickly.

Control-M is quite scalable in my experience. It can handle a large number of jobs and workflows across different systems without major performance issues. As the workload grows, it is possible to expand the environment and manage additional processes while still maintaining centralized monitoring and control.

Customer support has generally been good. The support team is responsive and provides helpful guidance when issues arise. The documentation and knowledge base resources are also useful for troubleshooting common problems.

Before using Control-M, some workflows were handled through basic scheduling tools and manual scripts. Moving to Control-M helped centralize job scheduling and monitoring, making it easier to manage dependencies and automate processes more reliably.

The biggest lesson I learned while working with Control-M is the importance of properly defining job dependencies and workflows during the initial setup. When dependencies are clearly configured, the automation runs smoothly and requires less manual intervention. It has also highlighted how valuable centralized monitoring is because it allows teams to quickly identify and resolve issues before they impact downstream processes.

We are just a user.

For return on investment, we have experienced improved automation and reduced manual effort. In terms of operational efficiency, automation through Control-M has reduced manual overhead by around twenty to thirty percent, especially for routine batch job monitoring and scheduled tasks.

I have no idea how the pricing, setup, and cost licensing is done. It is done by the finance department.

We saw the working methodology of Control-M, how batch jobs are handled, and how the automation works, so we just went for Control-M.

With job scheduling and workflow automation, this automation has increased the scheduling time by fifty percent. The monitoring task has been reduced by twenty to thirty percent. Instead of going on multiple tabs, we can view it at once. Workflow management through the technologies is a bit of a complex task. As we have used this, we can implement it. For new users, it might be a bit complex.

Currently, we have been using this for the past six months. We are seeing good, positive results. The automation workflow is also good, and the batch scheduling jobs are definitely good. We will still want to try it on different platforms and then decide on any further usage or increase in usage of Control-M.

In production, this workflow is mainly through the monitoring and reporting features in Control-M. We check the job status to make sure the scheduled process completes successfully within the expected time window. If the job fails or is delayed, we review the logs again, analyze the dependency chain, and rerun or troubleshoot the job if needed. This helps ensure that the overall production workflow continues without impacting downstream processes.

One piece of advice I would give is to spend time planning the job dependencies and workflows carefully during the initial stages. If the workflow is well-structured, Control-M can automate processes very efficiently and reduce manual intervention repeatedly.

Overall, Control-M has been a reliable solution for managing automated workflows and scheduled jobs. It provides good visibility into job execution and helps teams maintain operational stability. I gave Control-M a rating of eight because it is a very reliable solution for scheduling jobs and automating workflows, and it helps me manage complex job dependencies and provides good monitoring capabilities, which makes it easier to track and troubleshoot batch processing. The reason I did not rate it higher is that the interface can feel complex for new users, and the initial setup and learning curve could be improved. With some improvements to the user interface and onboarding experience for new users, it could become even more effective.

Control-M is used for scheduling, specifically scheduling application jobs. We have always been using Control-M, as we inherited it. We work with all technologies within the business using Control-M, including WebMethods, Axway, and IBM MQ. In the managed file transfer space, using Control-M, I find that it is not as user-friendly as other products available for MFT.

The best features in Control-M are its ease of use and robustness; it is very feature-rich, which is what we use it for—scheduling. It is easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for our DataOps and DevOps processes as things change. The integration aspects of Control-M are out of the box, so they are straightforward to use. From using Control-M, I have seen improvements as they grow with the versions; with the newer versions come enhanced functionalities, such as the latest version allowing access through a web GUI instead of the client GUI that you have to install, which is quite helpful because you can access it from anywhere.

We are not on the latest version of Control-M; we currently have version 20 and 21.

I have been using Control-M for 10 years.

Regarding stability with Control-M, I would rate it nine out of ten for downtime, bugs, and glitches.

Control-M is very scalable, and I would rate it a nine.

I would rate the vendor's technical support for Control-M as a nine.

Positive

We have tried to look at other products, but there is no other product out there that does what it needs to do as Control-M does, which is why it is still around—it simply does what it needs to do.

The deployment of Control-M was quite complex to get in, but once it is in, it does what it needs to do. It took weeks to get Control-M deployed.

Control-M requires maintenance from our end, as we have to perform patching whenever needed, but that does not happen very often—probably once a quarter. Patching for Control-M is easy.

I have definitely seen a return on investment with Control-M in terms of time and resources, but I cannot speak to the financial aspect—I do not know. I would estimate that I have saved perhaps 20% to 30% on time and resources using Control-M.

From what I know about pricing, I would probably put Control-M in the expensive category, but you do pay for what you get; you are paying for a premium product.

We looked at AWS products for scheduling with Control-M; I cannot remember the actual name of the scheduling tool at AWS, but it is nowhere near as advanced as what we need.

Approximately 100 users work with Control-M. They are not all Australia-based; some users are from India, so we have offshore resources as well. My relationship with BMC is both transformative and transactional. Regarding the transformative aspect, I have impressions of BMC as both because we partner with them; we might not be strategic partners, but we value their advice all the time—not just product advice, but sales as well. We consider ourselves a partner with the vendor, but I do not know if we are officially a signed partner; we are a partner at the base level. When I refer to our relationship with the vendor, we are considered an entry level partner; we are not a reseller, so we cannot resell their products, but we are partners and we consult while using their products internally and with customers to support their customer base. Our clients are generally enterprise businesses. I would recommend Control-M to other users; I know they are going all web-based, which they believe is the best way to go, but I can tell you that everybody I have spoken to has said the contrary—they actually prefer the client GUI that you can install, which is easier to use and more feature-rich, while the web GUI is very hard and difficult to navigate through. I have rated this review a nine out of ten overall.

My current use cases for Control-M are mostly for workflow modernization, including internal workflows related to OS type executions, file transfer executions, Azure pipeline, data ingestion, and BDNA workflows.

What I like most about Control-M is the modernized API, which allows me to integrate with many other applications to create job flows using JSON. Application teams can own their own responsibility to create jobs instead of relying on a Control-M admin to create a job every time they need it.

Control-M should evolve into a more web-based SaaS level product, which they are looking into. They should improve the features that were available in Control-M localized installations. For example, if I have the server on-premises, more features are with the client, whereas with the web-based version they moved to now, many features have been missing that we expect should be coming as well. Configuration and CCM are missing most of the features that are in the on-premises version. Those features should be coming very soon, and that would be the best improvement they could bring.

Additionally, auto deployments and patch management always require manual work, so those should be coming through auto deployment, which would help significantly. Software upgrades and similar processes should be more optimized.

I have been using Control-M since at least 2014, which is about 13 years now.

Regarding stability, I would say it is based on the environment. For my bank, I never had an issue with crashing or anything; the performance was good.

Scalability is easy for me. It is all based on the plan regarding how many jobs I am going to use. I do not see any complications with scalability.

I have contacted technical support and we raise cases with them before every single upgrade or migration. We have a method of procedure plan where we check with them about recommendations. Most of the time, BMC does not recommend against proceeding, and they say I am good to go with it.

When there is an issue, the quality of support for a P1 case is good, but the solution they provide can be complicated sometimes, which takes time for them to investigate. Then they have to engage their developer team. Sometimes I would have already known that this is not solvable and only the developer team can advise on it, but they do not take it immediately. They take their own time to provide the solution, meaning they take one or two additional hours. If I were to put support on a scale from one to ten, I would give Control-M support a score of seven.

I have used alternatives like Redwood and some other internal tool called Insights software. Comparing Control-M to Redwood, Control-M is better; however, Redwood has a simpler tier level architecture than Control-M.

I did not migrate from Redwood to BMC; I worked on that software at my previous company where both software were used. AutoSys has also been used there. I have seen developers compare AutoSys to Control-M.

Migrating from other software does not require much work from my side; it is easier even for the developers. Control-M requires a little understanding of how these things work. For example, when the application person reaches out to me, they need to understand first how job creation works and how their job executes on their agent, and it is not more transparent for them. I have to conduct a learning session to help them understand these things, and those aspects are complicated in Control-M. However, Control-M is more optimized in that part. When they understand the tool, they prefer Control-M to any other solution.

When I joined my current bank, Control-M was already deployed but with a very old version. I took care of upgrading it to the very latest version. We were ten years behind, and there was no support, but I managed to get it upgraded to the latest version.

The upgrade was challenging at first. The OS flavors were very old, which Control-M does not support with the latest version. We had to plan carefully, thinking about how we would move to which version, and then we did a parallel build in Red Hat to move it. It was a very comprehensive plan we had to develop. However, it went well. When I am more experienced with the tool, I know how to execute the migration properly.

When it comes to deployment and maintenance, maintenance stays with the administration team, which is my team. We currently work as a core of five people for the deployments. When it comes from the application team to create a job, workflows, or whatever they need planned, it involves four to five people.

Regarding pricing, BMC is a little costlier. They need to come down with execution-based pricing. For my understanding, BMC charges based on executions, whereas Redwood charges or AutoSys charges based on successful completion. BMC is a little higher on that.

Integrating with technologies for my DataOps and DevOps processes as things change is easy. We use DevOps and data pipelines related to Azure data pipelines, and it has been easy for us because the latest version does have the support. We use our own application integrator developed by ourselves, so it was easier for us since we know the tool. My review rating for Control-M is ten out of ten.

My main use case for Control-M involves job scheduling and enrolling jobs. We assign job schedulers and receive tickets to work on them. This is the primary area where I use Control-M.

In different data platforms and cloud environments, we mainly use Google Cloud, and my experience has been very smooth and effective, thanks to its performance, user-friendliness, and quick responses that help meet user expectations. The automation aids significantly as well.

In our organization, we utilize Control-M to address strategic compliance requirements such as SOX audits and regulatory reporting by maintaining transparent, end-to-end audit trails for our batches, workflows, and specific jobs. We employ Control-M's built-in audit and history tracking to record every job event, along with automated reports and role-based access control (RBAC) to ensure that only authorized personnel modify critical financial and regulatory schedules. This supports compliance verification and audit readiness, which is particularly helpful in the financial sector for maintaining secure data.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization by alleviating the difficulty of assigning job schedulers and working on tasks. After its introduction, it has greatly assisted teamwork and reduced the working effort significantly, ensuring we deliver excellent output to our clients.

Manual tasks have decreased significantly, saving approximately four to five hours daily and providing substantial productive hours for the employees.

Control-M has facilitated the integration of Kubernetes and cloud-native workflows with traditional batch processing by scheduling operations to run in discrete SQL blocks over time, grouping and routing high volumes of tasks such as end-to-end reports or billing. These areas required considerable time before Control-M was introduced. Once implemented, Control-M made it easy for people to understand and work on these aspects while reducing time. Failed batches can now be quickly identified, corrected, and rerun without disrupting ongoing workflows.

The best features that Control-M offers are scheduling and reporting, as I use Control-M for both purposes. I find scheduling more valuable, as I work on that daily in my day-to-day tasks, scheduling operations and addressing the bugs that I encounter.

Control-M's governance and security capabilities are excellent, as they help many people understand processes and keep data in a secure mode. Control-M is consistent for me, with very good accuracy and understandable output.

Control-M is good at this time, and there is no upgraded version that I can work on since I need to explore Control-M more, as my access is limited. Whatever access I have is very comfortable and user-friendly, providing a very good environment to work in with no need for any developments or changes.

I have not faced any challenges or difficulties while integrating Kubernetes or cloud-native workflows with traditional batch processing using Control-M, as it is very smooth and efficient.

I have been using Control-M for two years.

Control-M is stable, and after using it for the last two years, I see no issues with it.

Control-M does not handle scalability well.

The customer support is very good, as I received phenomenal assistance from the customer support team. I would rate the customer support a nine out of ten.

Control-M is my first solution in this category.

I have seen a return on investment primarily in time saved. As an employee of the company, I can attest that significant time savings allow me to work on many other things.

Regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Control-M, it is minimal. Compared to all competitors in the market, it is reliable and user-friendly.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Control-M an eight. I give it an eight because it is a phenomenal rating that is very reasonable. While there might be some changes to make it more user-friendly, I have not explored those yet, but if given the opportunity, I will definitely explore the complete Control-M. Control-M in my organization is deployed on a private cloud, not a public one, and specific clients are using it, which is very helpful for security purposes with very limited users.

In our organization, we use multiple cloud providers depending on the project level. Some use AWS, and some use Google Cloud, so this varies. I would definitely recommend others to use Control-M because it is user-friendly, allowing for very easy and simple daily actions.

My main use case for Control-M is that I'm using multiple cases.

One specific example of my use case is that we get good results through supply chain management to make calls to PO manufacturers, everything from a single point of view contract.

Control-M helps me to take care of all my customers, reports, everything, and create agents, making it easy to control access; everything is taken care of by Control-M.

The integration and sequencing of data processing across diverse data platforms and cloud environments work well with Control-M, and I find it to be a very nice platform for maintaining our database.

In my organization, we are currently using Control-M to support AI and ML workloads, and it is very nice to use Control-M for supporting AI agents.

Control-M facilitates good processing in our organization, especially for Kubernetes or cloud-native workflows with traditional batch processing.

We have to maintain all those customer requirements and complaints, addressing everything in Control-M, and it works very well.

From our organization, Control-M has received a very good positive response, which may improve our day-to-day activities as well.

Day-to-day, my activities have improved with faster resolution solutions provided using Control-M, leading to efficiency gains that are significantly higher compared to previous methods.

I think Control-M offers many things to learn and to control everything.

Control-M features that stand out for me include automation, as it helps to get a prepared PO on time, to work with the supplier and manufacturer, and to create cost reductions.

A main feature of Control-M is monitoring; I monitor our customers, POs, availability, and everything in Control-M.

From a governance and security point of view, Control-M's AI capability is very good, and there is no data loss; everything is managed in Control-M.

The accuracy and reliability of Control-M are impressive, with data outputs showing 99.999% accuracy, and the data we enter is managed well.

Control-M is a very good tool for our supply chain. The improvements we need include a faster AI solution.

I have been using Control-M for three years.

Control-M is stable.

Regarding scalability, it will be good to use Control-M in our AI premises.

From a customer support perspective, I rate it more than 10 out of 10. I rate customer support a 10.

I need to check with IT regarding the switch, but if Control-M is good, we can think about implementing it.

There are no complaints regarding pricing, setup cost, or licensing; I need to check with higher management for details, but it seems favorable.

We don't have any other options; we are going to evaluate Control-M.

I have completed the Control-M session and will use some points for my career and improvement of my current chances. I rate Control-M a 10 out of 10.

I chose 10 as my rating because it's a good score.

Control-M is deployed as a private cloud in my premises, and we are using Control-M, which is very good.

As of now, we are planning to start with Control-M, so I don't have specific advice for others; if Control-M is good, I will suggest it.

The main use case for Control-M in my organization is automating productive batch processes. We have more than 18,000 tasks that used to be executed manually, and now they are handled through Control-M.

Approximately 15 users use Control-M in my organization, specifically the production operations people across three different shifts, and they are monitoring and ensuring that the production chain flows correctly, raising alerts in a timely manner in case of any incident.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization by increasing availability and minimizing operational errors. Availability at the batch level is now at zero operational errors, whereas before implementation we had several errors from manual processes and our operators.

Since Control-M was implemented, operational errors have been reduced to one or two per year.

I consider the best features that Control-M offers to be availability and ease of scheduling.

The ease of scheduling benefits my team in our daily operations by making it quite easy to integrate new processes into the production chain when we have something new.

Control-M's performance when it comes to building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring workflows in production is very important, and that is what we are looking for, even from when new systems and functionalities start being developed.

The artificial intelligence capabilities of Control-M have been quite useful for us, giving us the perception that it is quite secure in terms of governance and security. The accuracy and reliability of the results that Control-M offers in terms of its artificial intelligence capabilities have helped us, and we see it as a very reliable tool.

Control-M could improve further by integrating it into online processes and rolling it out to our operational areas.

I would suggest improving its dashboards so that they are dynamic, enabling us to know which processes had an error and to handle them as a top-level alert automatically.

I have been using Control-M for about 6 years.

Control-M is very stable in my daily operation.

The scalability of Control-M is very easy to scale since if we need to integrate new servers or new processes, it is not difficult.

I rate the customer support I have received with Control-M as very good since last year and this year. We have received excellent support directly from BMC or from a Control-M partner.

I could not point to an exact metric for the return on investment with Control-M; however, it has helped us in terms of staff since we have not reduced the number of people and we have not increased headcount even though we have increased the number of operations.

This has helped us avoid penalties for any financial loss due to a bad batch operation.

Regarding licensing, I would describe my experience with the licensing, implementation, and pricing of Control-M as positive. Since last year, there has been greater engagement from the BMC people, and right now we are already in the renewal process, where we can see a lot of interest and support directly from BMC.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing Control-M as I joined when Control-M was already implemented.

I rate Control-M overall as a 10 out of 10. I give Control-M that rating because it perfectly covers our needs and has helped us a lot in operations here in production.

Currently, the integration process of Control-M with other technologies within our DataOps or DevOps operations is not being carried out, but in the near future, we will surely need to integrate it with DevOps tools.

The most important lesson I have learned using Control-M over these years is that we have minimized operational errors by no longer doing things manually and, as a result, increased the availability of those batch processes.

Automation of workloads in different environments such as physical servers, virtual servers, or in the cloud is very important for my organization, but Control-M is not yet integrated there, so we are using other tools such as Ansible for those types of functions.

My advice to other companies that are considering implementing Control-M is that it is highly recommended. Although it is not inexpensive, it helps a lot, especially in the financial sector, being very useful for managing high availability and continuous availability with zero operational errors.

I have been using Control-M in my career overall for quite some time. I joined this company about five years ago, but Control-M has been used there for way before, perhaps eight years, nine years, or more than that.

What I like the most about Control-M is that it is very reliable and works well for scheduling and even monitoring. The best thing I could say is the good visibility of jobs and their dependencies. When something fails, suppose when multiple jobs are affected, it would be useful to quickly identify the original failure and what was impacted because of it. Otherwise, it has very good visibility, scheduling jobs, and status is everything is good.

When something fails, as an improvement, it would be useful to have a clear explanation of what actually went wrong. The interface can sometimes feel a little busy for us. Finding the right information can take some time. It is not that we cannot find it, but it takes a few clicks. It is always helpful to have something very clear that quickly identifies what went wrong.

Regarding stability, there is no lagging and no issues with stability; it is pretty good.

Regarding scalability, I can say ten out of ten because it gives very good visibility of all the jobs and stability. There is no crash or downtime. It runs pretty well.

I have contacted the technical support or customer support of Control-M;. If we have any issues or need any help, we do contact them and raise tickets.

Regarding the quality and the speed of the support, as of now, I can say that it is acceptable. The response time is quite good. When we need them to be on call to help us, we decide on time and they come online to assist us. So it is acceptable.

I have never used any alternatives or something similar; we have been using Control-M for quite some time.

Regarding how easy or difficult it was to learn how to use Control-M, we have been using both web client and fat client, and I feel that the fat client is easier than the web client. There are a lot of options in the web client. With the fat client, I get more visibility and a more user-friendly interface. In terms of easiness, since it was already deployed and the functionality was there, it was pretty easy with some training from my team. It was not so hard to get through Control-M.

Control-M does require some maintenance on my end; we have periodic updates and patches. However, that is regular and that is needed to patch the vulnerabilities. Other than that, there is not much maintenance required.

I am not familiar with the pricing;I think it is still in discussion with Control-M.

Our primary use case for BMC Control-M is enterprise job automation and scheduling. We use Control-M to centrally manage and monitor a large number of jobs across the organization, including scheduling, execution, failure handling, job resumption, and alerting. It provides end-to-end automation and centralized control of critical batch workloads.

Control-M has improved operational efficiency by automating and centrally managing job scheduling, reducing manual intervention, minimizing failures and downtime and providing faster alerts and recovery of failed jobs.

The features I appreciate most about Control-M are its user-friendly interface and simplicity. It is not overly complex and the built-in APIs make it easy to use and integrate with other technologies.

For DataOps and DevOps processes, integrating Control-M with other technologies is relatively easy with an overall medium level of integration complexity.

The version of Control-M I was using did not have AI capabilities. Control-M would benefit from stronger AI integration that can analyze error messages, identify the root cause and take appropriate corrective actions without human intervention. Currently, some basic errors still require manual intervention, which AI could help minimize.

I have been working with BMC Control-M for more than 15 years, with my first implementation experience being for a leading Saudi telecom operator.

I rate the stability of Control-M as a stable 10. Control-M is a stable product.

The number of users using Control-M is around 50 plus. We have a centralized administrator who has a team working with different stakeholders, making this a centralized tool.

Control-M is scalable. We can do both scale-out and scale-up. Both options are available.

I rate Control-M support around nine out of 10.

We have been using Control-M since the beginning. We explored other products in parallel, but this was a fresh installation with no migration.

Regarding ROI with Control-M, we have not quantified it, but it has definitely saved manual work. A lot of human work has been automated through Control-M, although we do not have quantification of the exact savings.

When I compare Control-M with other solutions such as Apache, ActiveBatch, Broadcom, and HCLTech HWA , I find that Control-M stands out, particularly in terms of product support and global support capabilities.

I definitely recommend Control-M to others and some customers have already purchased Control-M based on our recommendation. I give this review an overall rating of 10.

My use case for Control-M is that I am a Control-M administrator, and I use it for everything, starting from installing, upgrading, and configuring it, to defining jobs and file transfers, so almost everything.

The best feature of Control-M is that it has a lot of integrations with different other tools; I don't think there is any other workflow orchestrator that has so many integrations. I think it has the most, and if you don't have one, you have the possibility to create the integration with whatever tool you want. That's one of the best things I've seen in Control-M.

The ease of integrating Control-M for my DataOps and DevOps processes is actually great because it has native integration with Jenkins and CI/CD pipelines, so you don't have to work hard to integrate this. In my current company, we have Control-M integrated with Jenkins, and everything gets deployed via Jenkins without accessing Control-M, which is honestly the best way to do it.

Building, scheduling, and managing production workflows with Control-M is easy. Control-M also has a feature called Jobs as Code, so if a developer wants to create a job, they don't need to have extensive Control-M knowledge. Developers can create Control-M jobs and flows via code by scripting them in JSON files, making it not so difficult.

In terms of improvement areas for Control-M, the only concern I've seen is some mismatch in documentation, which is not ideal. You may easily find things that happen on the application, but you can spend time or have to raise a case to BMC to find out what went wrong, which is something they need to improve.

I have been using Control-M since 2005, so it should be 21 years.

My relationship with BMC is transformative rather than transactional.

BMC serves as a strategic partner and trusted advisor, helping my company map migrations and deployment. They also developed an integration module specifically for our company based on our requirements.

The integration process with Redwood was easy, didn't take long, and wasn't too complex, as there weren't many jobs involved.

I rate the technical support of Control-M as a nine.

I have migrated from Redwood some time ago.

In my opinion, the deployment process is easy; it is not difficult to deploy Control-M.

The deployment of Control-M takes hours.

Maintaining the Control-M system is easy.

I honestly have no idea about precise return on investment percentages, but I think the Jobs as Code aspect and the integration with Jenkins reduce the time of deploying things and training people to use the application to create jobs.

Regarding pricing, I consider Control-M to be the most expensive scheduling tool. However, it's worth it, as you buy something powerful and complete. In my opinion, despite being expensive, it is one of the best orchestrator tools available.

When comparing Control-M with other solutions such as Broadcom or ActiveBatch, I find that Control-M has a huge integration capability with many tools that other competitors do not have, particularly the native integration with Jenkins and CI/CD pipelines, which other tools lack.

The easy integration of Control-M with DevOps tools has made the decision to keep Control-M as the main scheduler in my organization a straightforward one.

Control-M is deployed in a hybrid model in my organization.

Control-M is deployed on AWS.

My organization is an enterprise business using Control-M.

I would recommend Control-M to other users and suggest they take it. They can conduct a proof of concept, but I don't think they'll find anything more complex than this tool, which is expensive but has everything you need. I rate this product a ten overall.

I have several use cases for Control-M. I have been implementing Control-M for a long time in several enterprises in Brazil, and then five years ago I moved to the US. I started working here in the US as well. I have several use cases for insurance companies and bank companies in Brazil, and currently, I am working with Bank Charles Schwab using this tool to transfer internal files between systems and applications.

We also have user-defined transfers to move files to business partners. Overall, I have been using this solution for 17 years and have many use cases to speak of.

When I joined Bank Charles Schwab, Control-M was already implemented, but I also work on implementing Control-M from scratch.

Recently, I did an integration involving Control-M with Pentaho and Power BI. Even though Control-M did not have the plugin for Pentaho, I managed to run a data pipeline using scripts and successfully integrate it into Power BI dashboards.

In general, the ability to check all your processes in a unified view that Control-M provides is what I appreciate the most about it.

Control-M helps to integrate processes across various applications in big enterprises, making it significantly easier since you have a single point of control and can see failures and impacts on the flow.

Now, with the new plugins that they launch every month, it is easy to integrate with technologies for my DataOps and DevOps processes.

I think they are going in the direction of managing data that Control-M orchestrates. Currently, it is hard to get data from the process that Control-M is processing.

The ease of deploying Control-M depends on the architecture chosen, as some configurations can require more setup.

I have been working with Control-M for 17 years overall in my career.

In terms of scalability, I think it is good. I have seen effective escalation when necessary during issue resolution.

I have contacted BMC technical support, especially when I cannot solve certain issues myself, but I have a good handle on it due to my long experience.

The quality of support is fast during production emergencies, but it can take longer when issues are not critical, with interactions sometimes taking several days.

They have limited support for native language issues, which can create challenges for non-English speakers.

Negative

Usually, I handle the deployment myself, but I need a team to implement large numbers of jobs after the deployment.

I do not have experience using alternatives to Control-M, as I was directly presented with Control-M when I started working with workload automation.

Control-M tends to be the most expensive compared to other competitors. However, I believe it is worth the price since it delivers the most.

It requires some maintenance on my end occasionally, especially when compliance or security updates are needed.