My use case for Control-M includes file transfer and workload balancing, but it is mostly focused on workflow management.

I love Control-M's reliability and ease of use. It offers ease of adaptability for upgrades, and the GUI features have been enhanced for better readability. Their reporting improvements are notable, and they developed software that helps manage licensing effectively.

Control-M is incredibly reliable, rarely having issues from an administrative standpoint. The high stability means I am rarely surprised by problems. Additionally, time-saving is significant; previously, scheduling involved paper and took much longer. Control-M reduced the scheduling time drastically, taking only about five to ten minutes to add a new job to the workflow.

One area that has room for improvement is support. Early on, support was fabulous, with efficient issue resolution processes. However, since approximately 2015, support has been lackluster, relying too much on email. I would suggest a return to hands-on support engagement.

Aside from the support aspect, I cannot think of anything else that needs improvement.

I started using Control-M in 2000.

Regarding stability, I would give Control-M a ten. Control-M is such a reliable piece of software. I rarely, if ever, have to do anything from an administrative point of view. When someone calls me with a Control-M problem, it surprises me as it is mostly stable.

Control-M is scalable. The easiest way to express this is regarding licensing; as you are scaling up, you should keep up with your licensing. BMC does an annual review, and your account representative will reach out for a licensing software run that generates a report using all Control-M components.

From one to ten, with ten being the best, I would rate their technical support about a seven.

Concerning Control-M, I previously started out with scheduling package software back in the old Uccel, which was bought by Computer Associates and called CA-7.

Installing Control-M was really quite easy; you simply download it and do the installation. The biggest thing is the front-end work prior to installation, such as deciding which database you will use.

My relationship with BMC is probably transactional. I rarely have to reach out to them.

The BMC service team could be better at being more involved in mapping out migration strategies, though they have a really good process called AMIGO that yields positive outcomes.

In terms of time savings with Control-M, I spend maybe thirty minutes a week, if that, on Control-M compared to other software products I have dealt with.

I did not have much engagement in the pricing area.

Regarding other solutions, Redwood was the only one I was familiar with. I saw a demo on that before 2010 when management was looking at maybe replacing Control-M.

Deployment is on a Windows platform in a high availability environment.

I would recommend Control-M to others looking to implement it, but it is essential to ensure it fits your environment, so doing a proof of concept is always beneficial.

In our project, we are using Control-M for job scheduling and monitoring. We have data workflows and many other components that we can manage from a business point of view. We can manage processes across on-premises and all kinds of environments.

Control-M is the easiest tool available because we can accomplish what we want. We can automate processes and reduce manpower, which is the primary benefit. We can manage all workflows across different cloud environments with the help of batch scheduling, automating, and controlling jobs. It is easy to handle if you are confident with scheduling and related components. We can improve Service Level Agreements and SLA management.

Integrations are available through API and Control-M automation API to build, run, and manage workflows. We can integrate with CI/CD pipelines. As an automation solution, Control-M provides cost and licensing benefits that are good for our ownership considerations. Flexibility is also available. Job failure monitoring includes email notifications and alerts. Some users feel that the interfaces, both web and desktop, could be more streamlined.

IBM workload automation is another tool, but we are satisfied while using Control-M and comparing it to other solutions. IBM is primarily suited for mainframe integrations only, whereas Control-M is a workload automation platform where we can implement job as code and use it easily.

Deployment and agent upgrades are straightforward with Control-M. If you want to upgrade one agent version or the client version, Control-M is easier to manage compared to other tools. If we have Java capabilities, we can easily perform these upgrades. Moving to Oracle 19c would be beneficial. TLS protocols are in place while fixing vulnerabilities. TLS 1.2 and higher versions are good, and we could upgrade to TLS 1.3 for better security.

From a security perspective, communication protocols like TLS are available. SAP optimization would be beneficial if possible. Improving the overall application path would enhance the solution further.

We have been using Control-M for four years.

We experience all kinds of stability issues, and they are difficult to manage.

Compared to all other tools, the scalability is moderate only.

We are receiving all the good support we need. Even when we encounter issues with vulnerabilities that we cannot fix internally, the vendor provides excellent response times and support. Everything has been positive.

We have used other vendors in the past, including solutions from Azure, AWS, and Salesforce.

We have achieved nearly 30% return on investment.

Nearly 100 users are using Control-M in our organization. We previously used BMC Eclipse, which is a Software as a Service solution, for three years. Control-M has enabled us to transition from mainframe to the cloud environment with Azure. We are using this on a video conference basis. My overall rating for Control-M is 8 out of 10.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

I have been using Control-M for five years.

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is good.

The customer support for Control-M is good.

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

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

I have multiple use cases in Control-M. I have used MFT, SAP R/3, SAP BW, the File Watcher, the Informatica module, and OS scripts. I have used almost most of the modules in Control-M.

I have worked with multiple companies over the past eight years. In one of the companies, we are the partner, and in one of the companies, currently we are the customer for Control-M.

In Control-M, what I appreciate the most is the visualization and the orchestration it provides to us. I have used other scheduling tools also, such as Autosys and cron jobs. Control-M has multiple features, including one in the MFT where we can perform seamless file transfer. I have not seen this kind of file transfer without a script, with just the help of a GUI. We can perform the file transfer with multiple domains, multiple platforms, and multiple servers. I feel this is excellent. We can even integrate Control-M to ServiceNow, where it is a ticketing partner. If the job fails, it will directly create incidents, P2, P1, and so on. The integration is seamless. I really appreciate these features in Control-M.

Year on year, I am seeing upgradations from Control-M. Earlier when I started my career, I was using Control-M version 7. The GUI was adequate. However, now every year, they have upgraded their tool. They have even released the web version of Control-M with browse-only access for others. I am purely the scheduler and administrator of Control-M. Control-M is my day-to-day activity. I go to clients to gather business requirements and pitch how we can integrate Control-M into their processes. I can see that Control-M is performing well. We have seen many new features. Recently, they have integrated AWS where we are performing file transfer directly from AWS S3 to other partners. I feel this is a good tool, and they are evolving. They are enabling us to evolve better as well.

I can say around twenty to twenty-five percent productivity increase has been realized, and even the margins have been increased. The resources have also been reduced with the integration of Control-M to other ticketing tools and other systems. I can see at least fifteen to twenty percent of the company's revenue has been increased at the infrastructure level by using Control-M.

With DevOps, I feel it is somewhat challenging. We have to use Control-M APIs. I do not see a simple drag and drop interface, similar to what we use for Control-M job creation. It is not that straightforward when we have to integrate with other APIs such as Git and other partners for DevOps, Snowflake, and all. I do not see it is that easy, but we can integrate. We need an API that is more user-friendly. I suggest that BMC provides plug-and-play APIs so that we can integrate with multiple applications.

In Control-M, the area that needs improvement is related to the cost. I have checked with other customers, and the licensing cost is somewhat heavy compared to other competitors. A few of the customers are transitioning away from Control-M because those tools are not yet as sophisticated. However, due to the cost and purchasing structure in their businesses, they are moving towards other tools. I recommend BMC to reduce the licensing cost. That is one of the major drawbacks of BMC. Regarding maintenance, I have heard that in the SaaS model, they are only performing administrative functions. However, the current three-layer architecture of BMC is somewhat complex. For beginners, they will not understand the Enterprise Manager, the Control-M servers, and the Control-M agent points. If BMC integrates Control-M EM and the servers in one part of the architecture, it will be helpful. It will make it easier for everyone to use Control-M.

I have been using Control-M for the past eight to nine years.

I can rate the stability an eight. I do not see many unstable issues. I can say it is most of the time stable. If it is unstable, it is because of our Control-M server issue, not the BMC issue. Due to the high CPU utilization of our servers or any kind of network issues within our internal on-premises servers, it will go down. However, I do not see any issues from BMC.

I can rate the scalability one hundred percent. It is a scalable solution. However, at the end of the day, it is a matter of licensing cost, whatever we are paying to BMC. They are charging upwards of fifty dollars per job or twenty-nine thousand dollars per year. It is a scalable solution.

My impressions of BMC as a strategic partner or a trusted advisor are positive. They are prompt in providing solutions. Whenever we have a P1 or P2 incident raised to BMC, they will mostly resolve it within the ETA. A few things they still need to upgrade. They will send those queries to their R&D, and they will get back to us. However, overall, with the licensing or with customer interaction or those kinds of things, we can trust them for a few more years.

I can rate the technical support a seven. I rate it a seven because a few of the technical staff who attend to our queries do not have the knowledge about major issues. If there is any major impact or major issue, they will also not know about it. They will say they will check with R&D and they will get back. The ETA will be somewhat high for P2s and P3s. Only for P1s, they will come on the call and they will try to resolve. I cannot say they are the worst or the best. They are adequate.

I one hundred percent recommend Control-M to our customers, the clients, and the multiple companies I have worked with. I will recommend BMC as an advanced scheduling tool for orchestration. There are areas of improvements for BMC as well. As the trend is going towards AI now, I have heard they are working on it, but we have not seen that in our versions of Control-M. However, as the trend is going towards more AI and generative AI, if they release anything related to AI in Control-M, such as a chatbot or something where if a job fails, a chatbot can tell how it has failed, that would be beneficial. We are spending half an hour to one hour to find the root cause of how a Control-M job has failed. If they do something about it, that would help significantly. We have multiple AI solutions coming up. If we can schedule those AI solutions through Control-M as well, it will be at par with the industry standards now. Otherwise, it will become legacy. I recommend this to all my customers because I feel this is one of the best advanced scheduling tools I have used. I can see very few competitors to Control-M as of now.

The solution was a partner purchase from one of the clients I am working for. They have purchased it. We also have an AWS module they have purchased from BMC.

The deployment has presented challenges a few times due to the compatibility issues of Control-M software with the other servers. It might be due to the Java version or some glitch in the patches we are receiving from BMC. A few times it is challenging. It is not straightforward. We need experienced resources or a proper administrator to redeploy this kind of thing.

My current relationship with BMC is both transformative and transactional. I am involved in both the licensing and technology upgrades. Recently, I have attended one of their roadshow events in Bengaluru. We are constantly in touch with the BMC customer. They have one dedicated customer support manager for our team. We will be in touch with them for any of the features or any cost or anything related to renewal of the licenses and everything.

My organization has more than one hundred employees. In only one office, it is one hundred. If I consider my overall company who are using Control-M, it is around one thousand plus employees using Control-M.

I have provided this review with an overall rating of seven.

I mainly use Control-M for scheduling jobs according to my requirements, which allows me to include holidays or exclude Saturdays, Sundays, or any specific time.

I also use cyclic jobs that run in a recurring period and can set up prerequisites before the job runs.

I can implement a File Watcher to establish a rule that a particular job can only run after the upstream job is completed.

I have created several new jobs using these capabilities.

Within Control-M, I use smart folders and jobs, and I can approach scheduling the way I want, so I have used it fully from start to end.

Control-M is straightforward for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows.

I use the XML side for configuration, which requires importing, and I find it user-friendly.

Control-M has been used for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows, especially at JPMorgan Chase Bank where most production support is monitored through Control-M.

I worked as a developer, developed jobs, and sent them to production, and the process was seamless.

My favorite feature about Control-M is the rule-based calendar feature.

The initial deployment of Control-M is straightforward, as it involves a simple installation of a Control-M agent within the server.

Control-M demonstrates strong scalability.

My application alone uses approximately 65 jobs, and for each folder, there are thousands of jobs that can load immediately in production.

When using a filter, the search is quick, and overall scalability has been excellent.

After migrating to Control-M, the positive effect on business-critical applications is evident: whenever a job ends successfully or fails, notifications are sent immediately.

These notifications go to EventBridge, alerting the team to any critical jobs.

High-priority jobs trigger alerts to engage developers immediately, ensuring there is no delay in response.

One area for improvement in Control-M could be in the logs, as they only show when the job started and whether it ended successfully or not.

Since the Control-M agent is running on the servers, we could pull up logs and display the actual error to aid in debugging.

I have been using Control-M for approximately eight to nine years in my career.

Regarding stability, I do not experience any lagging, crashing, or performance issues with Control-M.

Control-M demonstrates strong scalability.

My application alone uses approximately 65 jobs, and for each folder, there are thousands of jobs that can load immediately in production.

When using a filter, the search is quick, and overall scalability has been excellent.

I have never contacted technical support or customer support from BMC regarding Control-M because we have sufficient in-house expertise to share knowledge about it internally.

I started on TWS, Tivoli Workload Scheduler, which is an older tool with a poor user interface.

After transitioning to Control-M, I have been very satisfied with it.

I have not identified pain points until now because the use cases I addressed were fully satisfied by Control-M's capabilities.

Whatever use cases I needed, they were fulfilled by the product.

I used Tivoli Workload Scheduler earlier, but now the company has standardized on Control-M without using any other schedulers.

The initial deployment of Control-M is straightforward, as it involves a simple installation of a Control-M agent within the server.

Only one person is required for deployment, and it can be completed without needing a team.

For both job deployment and software installation, one person typically handles it, as we use an automation process with no manual work, making it a self-service operation.

I have personally used TWS as an alternative to Control-M.

I prefer Control-M over TWS.

The biggest difference between TWS and Control-M is that TWS has a poor user interface, while Control-M has an excellent user interface and alerting capabilities.

TWS requires monitoring on one page without navigation directions, whereas Control-M uses smart folders with parent and subfolders, maintaining a clear graph structure and allowing the creation of custom workspaces.

Regarding data pipelines, I have not explored integrating them via Control-M.

Non-technical users or business users do not need to use Control-M, as they primarily rely on developers or application support.

Currently, all employees at JPMorgan use Control-M for everything except mainframe jobs, which are monitored and developed through Control-M.

For maintenance, a patching team manages it, and I do not experience any downtime with Control-M.

I might not notice maintenance communications since they could be performed behind the scenes or during off-business hours.

I would rate this review an 8 out of 10.