Control-M SaaS EMEA

Over the years, I have worked with various firms to install and configure this system. The primary use case is automation, but the file transfer feature is also a valuable integration. Many people quickly understand the file transfer aspect because it is easy to set up. Therefore, automation is our top priority, followed by file transfer as a close second.

The solution has positively impacted my organization by allowing me to point to a single screen and say, 'That's the state of play in our batch operations.' Most sites do things in the daytime, so overnight, there'll be some batch processing running, and then they'll get file updates in the morning. If you can just look at the screen and see we're running 30,000 jobs overnight and this is where the problems are, you can just point to the three little red boxes that are what we need to fix. It's a very good way of being able to tie everything together and say, 'We know what's running, what's not running, and where the problems are.' Also, statistically, you can go back into history and say, 'This thing has been failing several times in the last three months, and we can see where our issues are and where we need to concentrate.'

The best features of Control-M include the fact that you can easily connect different platforms. For anybody coming to it, if you needed to script a solution that connected Windows and Unix and mainframe, that would be difficult. But with Control-M, you can just sit back and connect a COBOL program running on the mainframe, trigger something on the Windows platform, then do a file transfer on Linux. That's all basically just drag and drop. You can just indicate that these lines between these boxes perform those actions. The fact that you can tie different platforms together, including the cloud now, which many people are starting to use extensively, is very helpful.

Integrating Control-M with technologies for Data Ops and DevOps processes can be easy or difficult depending on the site. Many people have embedded methods for these things, so it can be difficult sometimes at various different sites to get it to integrate. It's not the tech or Control-M itself that's the issue; it tends to be the processes at different locations. It is very good at handling DevOps and the change management on the operations side.

Areas of Control-M that have room for improvement include the reporting feature. The reporting on Control-M hasn't changed much over the years, although it is in a different internal format. It used to be Crystal Reports, and now they've upgraded that. It would be better if that was really flexible where you could define your own reports. You can customize it a little bit, but when people come in with complex questions, you should be able to use that tool and access anything in the database.

Control-M has two internal databases that are core to the product. You can go in and do your own SQL queries against the database, but this reporting tool should really be able to do everything that you can do with SQL, and give you good information. Instead, you end up having to export to spreadsheets and then change and update them. It can be very labor-intensive to get this information out.

Other than the reporting, they've addressed most things over the years. Control-M is a tool that's been around for more than 30 years, so they have actually fixed most issues that you would encounter. They have a request for enhancement process that most users have sent requests to, but it doesn't move very quickly. The other challenge is they're supporting so many different platforms; BMC just wants it to be a trouble-free release. When users request new features, such as improved reporting, BMC's priority remains maintaining a clean-running system.

I have been using the product for approximately 24 years.

Control-M is very stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten. It very rarely has anything that goes wrong. It has to be stable; if it wasn't stable, then we wouldn't be using it.

Control-M is scalable for business requirements and needs. On the SaaS side, they've given certain limits which wouldn't allow for moving the entire batch currently to their cloud-based solution. But on-premises, it is completely scalable. Other customers are running a million jobs per day without issues. If you did have issues, you could add servers on the side that would handle the extra workload.

We have around 20 active users logging into the system daily. These users are responsible for managing the cache within the system. This leads to approximately 500 users who receive the messages. Additionally, there are millions of customer names involved. In summary, there are about 20 users logging into the system and around 500 business application users receiving the data.

Their support is excellent. If you encounter an issue that affects your business, you can call them at three o'clock in the morning, and they will help you find a solution.

I would rate the technical support a solid nine out of ten.

Positive

I have always used Control-M. I've worked at sites where they've installed Control-M as new and then migrated various things from CronTab. CronTab is just a Linux tool that comes with the Linux boxes to schedule, but it's the Linux native scheduling. It tends to be quite simple these days. BMC supplies scripts to do the conversion. Problems start to arise when people have created their own solutions on their own platforms, where 90% of the stuff is easily migrated, but 10% will be something specific to Broadcom or other schedulers, requiring script changes in Control-M. The same situation occurs when moving from Control-M, as people often leverage specific features that become problematic when trying to move to different solutions.

It's on-premises. The organization I work for has IT operations in about 60 different countries around the world. We use Control-M in at least 15 or 16 of those locations, and each site can be quite different. For instance, in Paris, they only use it for the mainframe. Our main office is in Germany, where they are starting to use the test version, and they would like us to explore the SaaS version as well. 

If I were to start looking into this, I think a hybrid approach would be the most logical way to organize things. This would allow us to have a clear view of both our on-premises and cloud environments, enabling a gradual migration to the cloud instead of making a major switch all at once. I've seen BMC presentations on this, and it looks promising. The advantage is that I wouldn't have to worry about where each workload is processed; everything can be monitored and managed from a single screen, which is very powerful.

Additionally, I've spoken with users who utilize cloud workloads, and their primary concern is cost rather than the specific platform. Control-M is effective at managing this. For example, if you're planning to deploy a workload on a specific server, the scripts can easily handle the transition to Amazon's cloud the following week. If a provider has a special offer in a month, like Google, it's straightforward to switch our workload to run there instead. With Control-M, this process is transparent and uncomplicated.

The maintenance is complicated. There is patching to consider on both the Control-M service side and for the agents and modules. When it comes to file transfers, you need a specific module from the Managed File Transfer (MFT) service. Typically, every few weeks, we need to install a new set of updates, whether due to a security issue or the introduction of a new feature. If you go to the Application Center (AC) and use that version with your account, you don’t have to worry about caching, as they manage that on the systems. You could use it in a controlled manner, perhaps on a Sunday morning. However, using a basic version might present some challenges for us.

Usually, the Linux team handles the patching, but it's also necessary to conduct tests. Sometimes, the latest version can alter certain behaviors that might not be acceptable in a production environment, so testing is crucial. It does require a separate environment dedicated to that. Overall, managing patches is a significant task. One key selling point of the SaaS solution is that you won’t have to worry about it in the future; BMC takes care of that for you. However, some of my colleagues are concerned that implementing a SaaS version could mean losing a significant portion of their work to automation, particularly the patching responsibilities. It’s definitely a complex situation.

It's hard for me to determine, but at the current location, we did conduct a study. We use Control-M to run a data warehouse, and an external company evaluated our setup. They concluded that the way we operate with our existing tools and at our current scale is actually more efficient and cost-effective than purchasing a packaged data warehouse product, like Informatica.

At my previous employer, we performed a similar study, and the results showed that the product paid for itself within the first year. Moving forward, it continued to be very cost-effective. The benefits tend to be hidden—people often overlook them because these processes run in the background, handling file transfers and other tasks. If I had to hire a developer to script these operations, those costs would be substantial, along with ongoing maintenance.

With Control-M, you define the processes once and then let them run. The operations team can monitor it, which means it integrates seamlessly with existing systems. In terms of return on investment, it pays for itself quite quickly. However, because these advantages are often invisible, people don't fully appreciate the costs and savings involved. You really need to consider the expenses of hiring a developer or operations staff specifically for these tasks. If you use Control-M, those costs effectively disappear, and people tend to just assume that everything is functioning as it should. It's definitely worth noting the return on investment. I'm sure BMC would be happy to provide those figures, demonstrating that it quickly offsets its initial costs, even if there can be significant upfront expenses at times.

Pricing for Control-M depends on the licensing model, with different options such as the per-agent model or the per-job model. BMC is phasing out the per-agent model in favor of per-job licensing, which can be expensive. The Control-M Helix SaaS version will only be available with per-job licensing. Currently, some implementations use a flat rate based on the number of agents. The shift to per-job licensing could have significant cost implications.

Control-M tends to be more expensive compared to other solutions, but users get great value from it. Organizations have invested considerable effort in developing for Control-M, making migration away from it less desirable. Competitors may offer fewer features at a reduced price, which could be a deciding factor for some companies.

Years ago, I was involved in a lot of Proof of Concepts (POC). Back then, IBM's Tivoli and Control-M were quite similar and difficult to differentiate. However, over the years, it’s become clear that IBM has not developed Tivoli to the level that Control-M has achieved. In my opinion, Control-M is now the clear market leader.

These days, you never know what new solutions might emerge that could disrupt the market. Nevertheless, Control-M has a robust footprint—it can integrate with many legacy systems, making it hard for competitors to come close to its capabilities.

While there may be newer solutions out there, I’m not fully aware of all the latest developments. Control-M does have advanced workload balancing in the cloud, but I still believe it remains the top choice for me. I may be biased since I've always worked with Control-M, but when you compare it to alternative tools, you often question whether they can accomplish specific tasks or integrate with various third-party products. You soon discover that many alternatives simply don’t offer the same level of functionality or integration, and even if they plan to provide those features in the future, they haven't yet delivered them.

Overall, I am quite confident in saying that Control-M is the number one product in the market. Of course, if you visit a potential customer site and they have unique requirements—especially if they are primarily Windows-based—they might find another product that better meets their needs than Control-M. However, in general terms and across most scenarios, I firmly believe that Control-M is the market leader in 90% of cases.

Our relationship with BMC has been transformative. However, I get the feeling that we are moving towards a more transactional relationship. Previously, they were very concerned about us using the products, growing with them, and deriving value from them. This was a refreshing attitude from a software company. That said, they are restructuring, and I get the impression that in the future, they may want to accelerate revenue generation. So, the nature of our relationship could change. At present, though, it remains transformational. They have been very helpful, with excellent support, but who knows what the future holds?

I absolutely would recommend BMC Control-M to other users. My only reservation would be with the new licensing structure. If you are going to be paying per job and your batch process was very granular without the ability to restructure, then cost might be an issue. Also, it is the serious high-end scheduling solution, so smaller enterprises might want to consider whether they need all the features that come with Control-M. For small or medium-sized enterprises, different solutions might be more appropriate. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My use case for Control-M  is primarily for automation.

The best features include the solutions with the recent AI version. The recent updates are impressive, as they allow for automatic jobs, which help improve our productivity. It gives us accurate logs whenever we need them, especially for Monday workloads that we have every Saturday or Sunday. Using it helps us solve problems quickly with the help of remediation.

Areas in Control-M  that have room for improvement lie more on the AI side. I'd like to see more enhanced workload automation, particularly expanding automation in API integration with other systems, improving user experience, and including templates. We still have to explore CI/CD pipelines and scalability.

I've been using Control-M for almost a decade.

I find it to be a very stable solution.

I would rate the scalability a seven, noting that it does have room for improvement.

I did not receive help from BMC's service team in mapping out my migration; we did it ourselves.

It's always been BMC; I've not migrated from Broadcom, CA Redwood, or any similar solutions.

Deployment is easy. It took around 45 minutes to deploy Control-M.

We did it ourselves.

The return on investment includes resources, time, and two headcounts. I can estimate that it has saved about 30 percent.

I would compare Control-M with Ansible . Comparatively, we have various tools such as Azure  ADF and AWS  crawler, and while Control-M provides a hybrid solution in multi-cloud environments, its role-based transfer capabilities significantly improve speed operations with simplified solutions.

For DevOps processes, we have not yet established or expanded out, so integration has been difficult. I'm not using it for DevOps or DataOps at this time. Currently, we don't have any plans to increase the usage of Control-M.

Learning Control-M has been significant. Learning the solutions involves working as in a job as code scripts, particularly within the visual code IDE  interface we use, along with the VS Studio code extension. For someone with non-technical skills, it's easier now. Earlier, it was a bit challenging, but we've picked up the programmatic interface, especially since it's a modern application release process.

My relationship with BMC is more transformative. I would recommend Control-M to other users because it integrates, automates, and functions as an orchestration application that helps in data workflows within complex and challenging technology ecosystems. Helix is one of the core leverages, utilizing the version engine for fast performance and a level five assessment in execution. Reaching a ten would require better integration with various tools like ServiceNow , as we also utilize Ansible  and AWS . The vendor can contact me if they have any questions about my review.

I rate Control-M a six out of ten.

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 use Control-M  for orchestration.

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

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

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

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

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

The solution is stable.

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

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

Neutral

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

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

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

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