I predominantly use Control-M for file transfers through the SaaS version. BMC has recently added an enterprise feature for the SaaS version, and we are now using it mostly for the file transfer part and also the APIs, which has been our latest addition.

With my current project, the File Transfer Enterprise is the best use case for us in terms of secured transfers and how we can track the transfers and manage significantly more with the transfers we are doing. This is the best feature, considering the ROI as to what my current scenario was and what we have achieved with the enterprise feature.

File Transfer Enterprise is the most valuable feature for our current project in terms of secured transfers and how we can track the transfers and manage significantly more with the transfers we are doing. This feature provides the best value, considering the ROI that we have achieved with the enterprise feature.

The integrator feature is not being supported by the BMC support team, which leaves it to us to customize and integrate it. Of course, the use cases differ and that is when they have decided not to have it under the support cluster. However, having basic support on the integration integrator would help us considerably. We do a lot of research and development to achieve what we need to accomplish, but BMC has the experts and eventually they have the answers. If they include the integrator feature under the support structure, it would be greatly beneficial.

The integrator feature is handy, but it can be tricky when we are trying to integrate in terms of achieving the connection profile. Setting up the connection profile initially to get any integrator working for us is somewhat tricky with different use cases we want to achieve. It is not straightforward.

I have been using Control-M since 2008 when I got into IT and started my career.

The SaaS version is excellent in terms of stability. For the price, it is very stable. We have not had any downtime. It has been more than two and a half years, approaching three years now since we got SaaS onto our system with no downtime at all. It is quite stable.

The scalability aspect is simply a matter of getting more agents in place and since it is a SaaS version, it gets scaled up on their end. We do not have to worry much about it. Of course, the licensing comes into play if the number of jobs are increasing, but it is dynamic.

I have recently contacted the BMC Control-M technical support team.

They are top-notch in terms of speed and quality. Most of the time, any question starts with extracting the logs and providing them to the support team, and they go through that. If they are not able to resolve the issue, they take time and put it to the research and development team. Of course, it takes a while if it goes to research and development, but they make sure that the issue is resolved. That is something great about them.

I would give the support a score of nine. I would still like to rate them ten, but some cases do take a while to get the resolution.

Autosys has been used and is the closest alternative to BMC Control-M. There are other features and other products, but Autosys is the most used alternative. However, it is nowhere near what BMC Control-M has to offer.

The initial deployment of Control-M was straightforward. With the current SaaS version, there is a support window of 14 days or specific hours. It is straightforward and depends on who is going to drive the deployment. For my case, I was experienced with the on-premise version as well, so that seemed straightforward for me. However, for those coming in with lesser experience, it may take some time. The documentation is excellent, so it is straightforward.

The deployment of Control-M requires two administrators. Basically, one administrator is the minimum need, but one can do the deployment. Since we have two admins, we share the workload. One is sufficient for the task.

Pricing for Control-M is on the costlier side when it comes to SaaS pricing. However, it does take off all the hassles of maintaining the Control-M server itself. This leaves us with only managing the agent part of it. It has pros and cons to that pricing feature, but it is on a higher side. Mostly in terms of ROI, the companies and stakeholders have that complaint.

Control-M does require maintenance on our end. There are two different windows of maintenance. One is when the core technology, in our case SAP, is getting under maintenance window, so we have to pause our jobs and resume it later on. This is a critical window that prevents our jobs from being pushed into SAP. We have to pause it and resume it depending on the schedules and make sure that we resume it and do not miss any jobs. The other window is when our agent maintenance or agent infrastructure maintenance occurs, when switching from a primary to a secondary agent, routing it, and making sure nothing is lost in the transit. Those are the two maintenance activities we perform.

We have a team of seven today, with two of us as admins. We have three schedulers and two monitoring agents.

Our engagement is with BMC. I have been involved with getting the contract rolled in for my current client and getting into the core of the technicalities in achieving the job requirements. It has been both.

We achieved the project in a month's time with Control-M. We had a project of converting and migrating our jobs from SAP workload onto the Control-M scheduler. End to end, we took less than a month to get the agents installed on the SAP infrastructure and get these jobs migrated from the SAP workload. Overall, I give this product a review rating of ten.

My main use case for Control-M is to control the batch for the day by scheduling the jobs, ensuring that all jobs run on time, and verifying that all conditions are met. Sometimes I force complete the jobs or rerun failed jobs by fixing the JCLs, and I ensure all batches are completed on time and all SLAs are met.

A specific example of a batch process I manage with Control-M is a weekly job which runs from Monday to Friday on all working days, and I ensure the job is completed on time. I also verify that if any files are pending to process which that job needs, the file is available so that the job can run once the file is available. Such scenarios are common in my work.

Regarding my main use case, I work on automation and ensure that there are no human errors. Everything we use is up to date, and we make sure to follow the SOPs perfectly.

Control-M offers several best features, including its user-friendliness. Compared to TWS and CA 7, Control-M is a tool wherein if you get training for 10 to 12 days, you can learn almost everything, and it is very good and simple to use.

What makes Control-M user-friendly for me is that we connect through the client interface, which is easy to log in to, and there is no downtime for it. Control-M is only recycled weekly. It is straightforward to define and monitor the jobs and to get insights from the zoom panel. The coloring shows us in yellow if a job is executing, red if it has failed, and other colors for different conditions, making it simple.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization, especially when new team members join as their first assignment. It is a tool we can explain quickly, giving them a few sessions to work in production or development environments faster compared to other tools like CA 7 or TWS.

In our organization, we work for a banking client where we handle 10,000 jobs running on Control-M daily. Managing those jobs would be difficult with other tools due to visibility issues. With Control-M, it is easier to manage workloads and handle abends, and the chances of missing things are significantly less compared to command-based tools like CA 7.

Control-M can be improved in several areas. Last week when creating a job, I found that the option for global conditions could be more streamlined, as well as the in and out conditions, which are a bit complicated. Integrating more AI options, such as automatically marking jobs that are known to fail as complete, would be beneficial.

I have been using Control-M for the last 16 years.

Control-M is 100% stable.

Regarding scalability, I would say it is good and there are always possibilities for scalability.

Customer support from BMC, who owns Control-M, is excellent. They provide good support for critical issues, and I would rate it 99% out of 100.

I have experience working on CA 7 and TWS. While CA 7 is a good tool, Control-M is better due to its simplicity and less complicated nature.

To deploy Control-M, I would say two resources would be sufficient for proper installation and defining architecture, security levels, and access control.

In our team, approximately 24 users utilize Control-M, with 15 members working 24/7 for batch operations and nine members focusing on scheduling tasks during business hours.

Regarding return on investment, training a resource on Control-M allows them to handle two or three clients at the same time, thus saving costs for the company and making it easier to train.

Those things are managed by the sales team. I do not have much visibility regarding pricing, setup cost, or licensing.

We evaluated Jobtrac, CA 7, and TWS before making our decision.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Control-M is time management, reliability, and the tool's availability, which makes our work easier.

I advise that if you have banking or insurance requirements or operate in a small industry, you can definitely consider Control-M as your first option.

I provided this review with an overall rating of 10 out of 10.

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.

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.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is extensively used by our clients mainly in the BFSI sector, where we see around 5,000 to 10,000 file transfers for a few critical customers. We use it for data from their vendors who provide inputs for their end clients, including insurance agents who provide data in these files, facilitating both B2B and B2C processes.

Regarding the usability of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer, I have been using it since 2009, and I have encountered no issues. I appreciate that no code is required, it is centrally managed through account management, validations are in place, and file transfers are tracked in an audit through which account they occur. It is one of my favorite solutions, existing since 1980, and I have written a lot of papers on Control-M, including one on my LinkedIn called 'A Leader's Journey' before BMC published the journey of Control-M.

My impressions of application workflow orchestration with BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer are that it is a fantastic tool I have been using for 16 years. I have even received appreciation from the development team in Israel, stating that no one has used the solution to the extent that my team and I have for one of our customers. The orchestration process allows easy accessibility to different applications, and it facilitates configuring with drag-and-drop functionality to set dependencies.

If you can share an email, I can provide pointers on potential improvements for BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer, focusing on customer-centric enhancements. For example, providing checksums for file metadata in reports could significantly help with file transfers.

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

Regarding stability, there were some issues reported during implementation and usage by our customers, but I would rate it an eight out of ten.

The scalability of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is impressive due to its ability to handle large quantities of data and files, but there are certain features that could be added to make it a game changer.

From a support perspective, BMC technical support needs improvements. There are novice users needing help, but for customers such as us, who have been using the solution for over a decade, the response needs to be more timely and efficient, utilizing L2 and L3 support effectively.

The initial setup process for BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is very simple for us, as it requires a component to be deployed in the DMZ, from where the file gets transferred centrally to the server.

We are the premium partners for BMC products implementations, recognized as Bihom partner of the year multiple times. I have deployed BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer since 2011 for our customers, and it has been working flawlessly, with people speaking highly about the solution as the heart of their organization.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has indeed helped our clients reduce IT operation costs. For instance, I implemented it for one of the largest banks in 2012, which reduced their loan process sanction from four days to just two hours, and now it completes in 30 minutes. Additionally, the timeline for the policy dispatch to insurance end clients, which initially took up to ten days, now happens in two hours.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has some competitors in the market, but according to the Forrester and Gartner reports, nobody is even close to this solution, and I prefer not to use open source options.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is my favorite product, so while I would typically rate it around 9.7 or 9.8, I would ultimately assign it a rating of 10.

Control-M is used to run Oracle scripts with scheduled jobs including monthly, weekly, and yearly schedules. Around 50 or more jobs are run every week. Control-M connects to the database, triggers all procedures, performs the operation, and generates the final report. The log is sent to mailboxes detailing how the process went, any issues, or any errors. If there are issues, the mailbox is checked; otherwise, a message indicating successful completion is received along with statistics such as how much time the process took and which processes were run. Jobs are scheduled once, Control-M jobs are created, timing is set up, and the jobs fire automatically at the particular time.

Control-M is used to connect to Oracle products, and through Control-M, a Tableau dashboard is maintained. Most of the scheduling jobs use Control-M to schedule. Control-M helps all products, making it a utility that can be used wherever scheduling features are needed. It is not just for DevOps, databases, or front-end applications; it can be used anywhere without manual intervention to perform particular activities. Wherever there is an opportunity for scheduling jobs, Control-M is the first option.

For migration, Control-M is considered very good. Once all the source and target details are configured in Control-M, it can automatically migrate data. It requires proper configuration and specifying the necessary changes for target technology along with the source system scripts. If properly configured, the complete migration can be triggered end to end. Data migrations and reporting, along with all scheduling activities, can be efficiently managed.

The best features in Control-M include sending emails to mailboxes after the process is completed and providing proper acknowledgement reports. The timing is impressive; it connects very fast and performs activities efficiently. The UI is very friendly, making it easy to configure jobs in Control-M. If core technology scripts are available, creating Control-M jobs is a five-minute task. The GUI is very friendly, which simplifies task assignment, scheduling, canceling, and all these operations, making it easily navigable.

Every week, 50 jobs are run using Control-M. If those 50 jobs were being run manually, it would take more than a week. Through Control-M, the jobs are able to be scheduled within two days, saving around five days of effort.

Before Control-M, jobs would be run on Friday evening so that the process would end by Sunday night, allowing the business to start on Monday. Without Control-M, everything would have to be run manually throughout the week. Thanks to Control-M, around five days are being saved. Otherwise, old data would be received for the current week's business, but now the latest data is received.

Control-M has room for improvement in displaying dashboard-like graphical reports once processes are completed. For example, after scheduling 50 jobs, if a dashboard showing the completed scripts, status, and time taken is displayed within Control-M itself, it would be very helpful. Currently, mailboxes are checked for reports; if it were in Control-M, anyone could check it. Only those configured with specific mail IDs receive emails, so if a few members are not set up, they will not see the reports. If it were available in Control-M, those users could directly check the dashboard.

Control-M has been used for the last two years from the beginning of the project level. Earlier, it was already there in Control-M that the client was using.

The same score for stability is a nine out of ten.

Control-M is capable of handling a large volume of processing if the necessary memory space is provided to the server.

Great support is received, with a rating of nine out of ten.

Control-M would definitely be recommended because it saves a lot of time. If everything were being done manually, it would take a lot of time to run and validate scripts. If everything is configured in Control-M, even non-experts like front-end staff can trigger jobs, making it simple. It is a one-time configuration, and anyone can trigger it. That is the best part; significant time is saved, and there is no waiting time; the next process starts immediately once the current one is completed. If dependencies are set in Control-M, it starts the next task automatically. That is why Control-M is highly recommended for scheduling.

The client is a big enterprise client.

Control-M requires occasional maintenance, maybe yearly or once every six months for upgrades. A Control-M team manages activities such as maintenance every six months or once a year, including cleaning up scripts or memory.

Around 15 members are using Control-M.

The overall review rating for Control-M is ten out of ten.

My main business use cases supported by Control-M involve working with healthcare, insurance, telecoms, and banking, both retail and investment, primarily to ensure things are working. Much of this is in regulated industries, so we have established the necessary processes and tools to ensure that Control-M code is properly controlled, allowing us to satisfy SOX audits and other similar regulatory requirements.

Host groups are one of the most valuable (and unrecognised) features in Control-M and allows you to make your code environment agnostic. They allow for load-balancing, simple scaling, and technology groupings. Control-M supports my DataOps and DevOps initiatives by providing a single pane of glass to orchestrate and manage workflows across numerous systems. With the integrations, I have access to all my on-prem and cloud-based applications, and I can write my own interfaces for systems that are no longer supported, such as managing Solaris machines which still run for some of my clients.

Control-M integrates with new or changing technologies within my DataOps or DevOps stack fairly easily. The BMC team consistently develops new integrations at a rate of two or three a month. If they have not already got an integration available, it is very straightforward for me to create one myself, even for older technology through agentless connections to unsupported systems.

Control-M enables new capabilities or business processes that were not previously possible. There is significant capability embedded in the tool, some of which is not immediately obvious. With some creative thinking, I can leverage these capabilities to improve performance and allow Control-M to handle much of the load balancing.

One key element where Control-M could be improved is in providing a better audit trail for converting from development through to test and then to production environments. The process can currently be done, but the XML version is difficult. JSON offers an easier approach and is going to be the standard moving forward, so some XML-related issues will resolve naturally. For those still on XML for source control, it is an ideal opportunity to review procedures within Control-M to ensure compliance.

I joined JP Morgan in 2007, which introduced me to Control-M, and I have essentially been working with Control-M ever since then, marking 18 years this year.

The stability and reliability of Control-M in my experience is commendable; it simply works if set up correctly. Proper analysis of infrastructure requirements, source code control, and growth expectations should be carried out before commencing the migration. Once those factors are right, the conversion should run very smoothly. It is important that the conversion is carried out by a collaboration between teams that understand the old and new systems.

Control-M orchestrates workloads across multiple environments quite easily. I find that the graphical interface is very user-friendly, and although I have traditionally used the desktop interface, the web interface in version 22 is now nearly as effective as the desktop.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Control-M raises interesting points. Pricing is often perceived as high, and the licensing model can be unclear. However, in the end, it is clear that I am paying for a top-end tool which rarely experiences issues, with most problems stemming from the applications being managed rather than the tooling itself.

Regarding other solutions considered before selecting Control-M, I have seen conversions from Redwood and witnessed attempts to convert out of Control-M into a cheaper product. These attempts often ended in failure, leading to a reversion back to Control-M. Currently, I am looking at conversions from TWS into Control-M SaaS, and Axway into Control-M SaaS, along with several other potential conversions.

With proper planning, setuo is straightforward.

The biggest return on investment I have experienced with Control-M is the reduction in support time. If I set things up correctly with appropriate alerting levels, my support team can proactively prevent incidents rather than waiting for something to go wrong. The most significant metric is the number of support tickets prevented, rather than the number of support tickets closed.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Control-M raises interesting points. Pricing is often perceived as high, and the licensing model can be unclear. However, in the end, it is clear that I am paying for a top-end tool which rarely experiences issues, with most problems stemming from the applications being managed rather than the tooling itself.

When considering the overall experience with the migration processes of my customers, I find that if they approach the process with proper planning and due diligence, it typically goes very smoothly. A common mistake is trying to lift and drop what they had in another tool into Control-M without considering process differences, as the tools do not function the same way.

My advice to other companies considering Control-M is to conduct due diligence, examining not just initial costs but also ongoing expenses. It is essential to consider anticipated usage duration and growth patterns, as a correct setup facilitates easy growth, whereas a faulty setup complicates matters.

I would rate Control-M overall as a 10 out of 10.

Mostly, customers need to perform file transfers, which is a main use case for many customers. Many customers I worked with use various kinds of file transfers, and I use BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for this purpose.

This solution affects our organization's business modernization initiatives as BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer can remove silos. When you don't have an orchestration product, many departments perform tasks in an isolated way. With our orchestration, I can integrate legacy assets with modern assets. Technology is always reinvented, so you have to handle backward technology and gain business advantages when you use new technologies. Using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for orchestration is the best definition for this.

I use BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer as a core feature. The best features with MFT are accurate file transfer and visibility for file transfers.

Regarding the usability of MFT, it is very easy and powerful to use.

BMC has made some improvements for this product. For example, I can use MFT inside my company and then use MFT Enterprise to exchange files with external users.

I have noticed more features and enhancements for this product in the latest releases. BMC Control-M's Application Workflow Orchestration is very advanced.

While I am unsure if BMC is a leader in the Gartner Magic Quadrant, they have been working in this area for many years and have improved their product.

The solution has helped reduce IT operation costs.

BMC is already improving in artificial intelligence and integration with cloud. AI can improve and is definitely an area where BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer continues to enhance.

I have good feedback for the deployment because when customers show challenges, we can perform a smooth deployment for this solution.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer helps to reduce costs. When you have control of your entire production, you can be proactive and control your SLAs. You can save substantial money just by having control of everything.

It saves significant time. Here is one use case: when you don't have visibility of your infrastructure, you have a misconception that everything is fine, however, when you discover that some processes have not been handled properly, you will discover this too late. When you discover something is late, you will lose money and time. However, when you have everything under control with BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer, you can be proactive and prevent scenarios where you lose money and time because time is money.

This is the main benefit; when you have everything under control, it prevents you from losing money and time.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this solution a ten.