My main business use case supported by Control-M is performance data generation, which includes all orchestration jobs and workflow processes.

The feature I appreciate most about Control-M is the capability of scheduling jobs automatically, as the dependency and control runs all tasks automatically by themselves.

I value this feature because it frees up a significant amount of time from my daily work, allowing me to concentrate on other more manual tasks.

Control-M supports my DataOps and DevOps initiatives by automating the entire process through the dependency and successor logic.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Control-M is that it helps me automate the manual tasks of my daily work.

My company has achieved measurable benefits with Control-M through automation, which has improved delivery and reduced the possible manual errors that a human can make.

I think Control-M can be improved because we recently moved to Helix, the cloud control, and the latency of the application is substantial; the job is running in the background, but the UI side is very slow on the front end.

Control-M integrates with new or changing technologies within my DataOps or DevOps stack well; the cloud improvement is positive, but now that AI is a significant topic, it could incorporate more AI features. Although they do have some AI functionality in the cloud applications, it is not particularly useful and intuitive.

If I were to estimate the improvement percentage, I would say around seventy percent.

I have been using Control-M for six years.

After moving to the cloud solution, I believe Control-M is much more stable; we have been using it for around two years, and I do not see any downtime. On the cloud solution, I do not observe any downtime; however, on-premises, sometimes the server is not up and the agent is not running.

In terms of scalability, I believe Control-M works well for the work I am performing, around eight or ten because we are heavily using it for morning tasks, data preparation, and preparations early in the morning for the day.

BMC customer service and technical support typically assist us; we usually speak to the relationship manager to raise any concerns or issues that we find, and so far, we still receive the answers we need, although the response may not be as immediate as we expect.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a seven out of ten.

My company considered switching to other solutions once and attempted to source alternatives, but we ultimately decided to stick with BMC.

The overall experience with the deployment process of Control-M depends on whether we are discussing the application itself or the creation of the job.

I would describe Control-M's performance in building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring workflows as quite good; I have previously used other orchestration tools, and I believe Control-M has much better visualization of workflows in terms of scheduling jobs.

I use Control-M to orchestrate workloads across multiple environments; we have a stream of workflows that connects to AWS, then SQL Server, and our in-house applications and so on, creating a large web of workflows across different kinds of applications.

Control-M handles complex data pipelines and analytics processes mostly through the designer that designs the workflow; we put the complex logic there, and it serves more as a tooling for us to use than Control-M handling all of this.

The creation and automation of data pipelines across on-premises and cloud technologies with Control-M is quite good; so far, I have no complaints with that. Between the on-premises and cloud, we have one less concern about how the application processes on the cloud, but on-premises, we have more freedom in accessing the database and some backend functionality.

My advice for someone or other companies considering Control-M is to check their business requirements and see what Control-M can actually offer because they do have many plugins for different kinds of usage, so it totally depends on what the company wants.

I would rate this review eight out of ten overall.

Control-M serves as our main business use case for business application batch job scheduling. Control-M is not a user-interacted system; it is a batch scheduling system where our applications interact with Control-M rather than users. We do not use Control-M as a DevOps tool, but we utilize it for all our applications, which are batch-based applications. Control-M orchestrates workloads across multiple environments. Control-M is handling complex data pipelines and analytics processes effectively.

The features of Control-M that I prefer most are Control-M/EM, Control-M/Server, and Control-M/Agent, which make up the Control-M batch scheduling system.

Control-M is easy to use because our key application is a batch-based application, so Control-M performs the job for us by handling all the automation and related tasks.

The measurable benefits my company has achieved with Control-M include improved SLA and reduced errors, as manual batch job runs lead to numerous errors and failure to meet the SLA.

Since we have been using Control-M from day one for batch scheduling, we do not have a percentage showing improvement because we have not used manual scheduling at all.

Regarding AI or automation, we would appreciate the opportunity to explore the AI functionalities because the application we are currently using does not support AI. It would be beneficial in the future if Control-M were to have AI capabilities.

I have been using Control-M for around eighteen years.

Control-M is a stable product stability-wise, and we do not encounter many issues. The only problem occurred when we upgraded to the latest version, which resulted in CPU spikes in Java, and this was resolved with support and a patch.

The support for that issue was adequate. We called support and eventually received a solution after reaching out multiple times, and the issue is now fixed.

Control-M's scalability is adequate. It is a scalable product, and we have not over-engineered it, so it meets our business needs.

We provide direct feedback to our support partner for Control-M, so nothing comes to mind at the moment. I consider the current support to be adequate.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate customer service and technical support as seven. A score of seven is decent enough. I am not saying Control-M support is a perfect ten, but I consider seven to be a good rating.

It has been a long time since we looked at other solutions, so I do not remember what we considered.

We do not handle Control-M deployment ourselves. We simply install it, and it is a stable environment, so we do not keep deploying it regularly.

BMC's service team supports our deployment and migration strategy well, with professional service and good support during our recent upgrade.

The biggest return on investment when using Control-M is ensuring that all batch jobs for our business applications meet the agreed SLA, which justifies our investment since we use this tool for a critical application.

Control-M is not inexpensive. Looking at other tools in the market, they are offering competitive prices, but Control-M, as a BMC product, is definitely not inexpensive, and BMC could improve their pricing strategy.

We have looked at other products when considering switching, but I cannot name them. I do not see a major difference between the products we looked at while considering Control-M. Pricing-wise, the other products were less expensive.

I would rate Control-M as a seven as a product. My advice to other companies considering Control-M is based on all our lessons learned, especially regarding issues we encountered during migration and implementation, which should be taken into account. I have assigned a review rating of seven to Control-M.

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.

Control-M is a scheduling tool that I have been using for the last three years. Earlier I used Autosys as a primary scheduling tool. When I started Control-M, it was a new experience because Autosys was over the cloud and we used to log in to the browser. Control-M is specifically for the application where we are using it now. The good thing is that there are so many connectors available.

Although I have one year of Autosys experience, Control-M presents a vast opportunity for us as a developer. Currently, I am in a data warehousing project where all the tools are legacy tools such as Informatica, SalesScript, Control-M, and database. When we are moving to the cloud, Control-M is still valid and relevant. We are transferring our data to the cloud and using Control-M as a scheduler. We are not using native cloud scheduler to date because all the developers here are accustomed to it.

We are almost using around 60 to 70% of the features. Control-M is providing us with so much capability to use during our daily problem-solving.

The good thing is that there are so many connectors available. Control-M provides lots of features, and we are almost using around 60 to 70% of them. Control-M is providing us with so much capability to use during our daily problem-solving.

When I joined this project and was very new to Control-M, there was one problem that even the seniors were facing sometimes. Suppose you are using Informatica; there are lots of Informatica developers in the market or some other tools that are very known to everyone. Even though Control-M is used by lots of people, the documentation in the beginning was very hard to search for on Google. This is why we had to reach out to people who were experienced, and it was a tough job for us because a few functionalities are not properly written in the documentation.

Another area of improvement is related to multiple versions of Control-M being used. In dev, one version exists, and in production, one version exists. In production, the stable version is used. Sometimes when we change over, there are multiple domains in Control-M such as Planning, Monitoring, History, and Forecast Tools. When we hop from one domain to another, sometimes we open a job, and the detail dialog box or detail window is not able to open.

Some features which are hidden are not properly documented in Control-M itself, or maybe documented but not properly given or described with examples. This is a problem. Sometimes we are forced to connect to senior developers who have used it for five to six years or more to learn about it.

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

There is no maintenance on my end. In the last three years, I have seen two upgrades that were done by the admin team. Control-M is using the new versions, and as a developer, I am using it.

Control-M processes about 10,000 jobs starting every day in our production environment, and adding new jobs is very simple. We don't feel any pressure on Control-M because it is processing multiple jobs in parallel.

Regarding contacting technical support about Control-M, we tried, but at that time, we didn't get any response. We reached out to our client head, described our problem, and received assistance.

As a developer, I created an account in the BMC community to get help support. We post there nearly because sometimes we need solutions very quickly, and we don't have time to connect with the guys in the Control-M help desk.

Earlier I used Autosys as a primary scheduling tool. When I started Control-M, it was a new experience because Autosys was over the cloud.

Regarding the initial installation and setup of Control-M, I still have not installed it. I need to connect with one of my friends who are working in the ops team, as I am in the developer team. We never install Control-M here in this project.

I need to connect with one of my friends working in the ops team, as I am in the developer team. They have the access to install, uninstall, or configure anything.

Regarding pricing, I cannot comment. As a developer, this is not in my hands, and it was decided by the client.

If Control-M is selling their product to new customers who have never used anything, then who will support the new customer? The customer may not have the senior engineer who has used Control-M earlier, so the documentation matters. Control-M can improve this in the way that others have; for example, Databricks, Google Cloud, and Azure have so much documentation.

Whatever we wanted, we have it. Control-M is not executing anything; it is just a scheduler. It schedules an Informatica job, and Informatica is running on its operating system, managing all the logs, and showing us that the job is completed. I have not seen any lagging. This can be answered by the ops team better because as a developer, I own a few applications, and when they start and end, my duty is done. Overall, I would give Control-M a rating of eight out of ten.

My use case for Control-M is scheduling batch jobs in the banking sector. Previously, I used it for support jobs, and subsequently utilized it in development activities. When making changes to jobs, we need to locate them in Control-M. We monitor the screen and search for jobs with different filters such as the order date filter. In our project, we use the order date filter because jobs run on every order date. Based on the order date, we navigate to the particular date and verify if our job is running. If it is running, we check the status and review the logs.

Previously I used AutoSys, and when I transitioned to Control-M, it was initially exhausting because Control-M allows longer job names. Based on the job name, we can understand what the particular job is doing. Here everything comes into one number as we are using short job names, which was initially irritating. Once I became accustomed to it, it became simple to organize things efficiently. We can see all the links, predecessor links, and dependencies visually.

When we select a job in Control-M, we can see all the linked connections, including predecessor jobs. Sometimes when a job has multiple dependencies located far from the current location, we need to scroll down to see the linked jobs. We have a feature to right-click and go to the dependent waiting info, but whenever we click on a job, it should visualize the link and display the job name on the particular line it relates to. This would be a beneficial feature to implement.

From my knowledge and job role, business users do not typically use Control-M since they are interested in the end product rather than the scheduling tool. However, they are concerned with ETAs for their reports. When batches get delayed, business users need to determine when their particular report will be ready. Currently, they must ask the technical team for timing updates. If Control-M could develop a portal showing ETAs for business reports, it would eliminate the need to consult the technical team.

In my six years of experience, I have primarily worked with existing jobs. For creating dependencies, the current process requires multiple steps, including going to the predecessor and action items and setting up in two places. Implementation of drag-and-drop functionality would simplify this process. Users could create dependencies by clicking on the source and dragging it to the destination, with additional setups for actions and notifications available through a separate menu.

I have been using Control-M for approximately five to six years in my career.

Regarding stability, in my previous project, I experienced lagging with refresh times of six to seven seconds. In my current project, I feel more comfortable as the refresh time has improved to one or two seconds.

Control-M is particularly suitable for large companies. Many big companies are migrating from AutoSys to Control-M. The graphical visibility of processes is clearer than other job scheduling solutions, which is Control-M's biggest selling point.

I have never contacted Control-M technical support or customer support as the client team typically handles any issues.

I have used AutoSys, where I developed numerous jobs. AutoSys uses dependency configurations that I found easier to set up compared to Control-M.

I cannot speak to the ease or difficulty of Control-M's initial deployment as it was already implemented when I joined the project.

I have limited visibility regarding Control-M's pricing since we use it as clients and work as contractors.

When joining projects, Control-M is typically already implemented, so I have not had the opportunity to migrate from previous solutions.

Regarding Control-M's management and orchestration of workflows across enterprise, we currently use on-premises solutions. In my previous project, we used cloud solutions, but I found the on-premises solution more effective for technical people, while cloud solutions are more suitable for business users. When scheduling is cloud-based, there can be lag time as it takes longer to reflect changes from on-premises to cloud environments. With the current trend moving toward Databricks, cloud implementation becomes a viable option for jobs already running in the cloud. However, for jobs running on an on-premises server, cloud implementation may not be the optimal choice.

I rate Control-M a seven out of ten.

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.

The main use case is to automate business processes from ERPs, SAP, databases, and file transfers. I also use it with DataOps and DevOps. It is very easy because Control-M has native integrations with many tools, and BMC develops more integrations every month, making integration straightforward.

Recently, BMC has focused on cutting-edge technologies, such as cloud, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. These are the latest connectors that BMC has released for these technologies.

Control-M is an orchestration tool that provides a broad and complete vision of your environment. You can integrate many different heterogeneous technologies. The main feature is its role as an orchestrator. It is easy to use and has numerous native integrations. If you need a specific integration for a homegrown application, you can develop a connector for that as well. Control-M can be used with a job as code approach, and it provides audit and governance capabilities on the platform.

I cannot identify areas for improvement at this time because Control-M is a state-of-the-art technology.

I have been using this solution for more than 15 years.

The deployment process is very straightforward. There are two distributions for Control-M: an on-premise offer, which is the classical offer, and Control-M as Software as a Service. While Control-M is easy to implement overall, the Software as a Service approach offers many advantages because customers don't need to worry about infrastructure since BMC handles it entirely. Additionally, customers don't need to perform upgrades and cumbersome initial setups.

The solution is very stable and secure.

The scalability is very good because Control-M implementation can be used in high availability. For on-premise implementation, you can distribute components of Control-M in different machines. The SaaS implementation is also very scalable.

The technical and customer support is excellent. BMC has great development in both areas. The support is accurate, and BMC is always ready to help with queries and complex incidents.

The benefits include achieving digital transformation, accelerating business processes, removing silos, and meeting SLAs at the exact time.

I am not comfortable discussing pricing details. I prefer to focus on technical issues.

I am a Control-M consultant working with utilities, banking, and government sectors. In Brazil, Control-M is used by a broad range of companies, including major financial companies, utilities, oil industry, telecom, and retail. Control-M is widely recognized in Brazil for orchestration. BMC continuously improves the tool. The reviewer has given Control-M a rating of 10 out of 10.

I'm not sure about Control-M because it is only for another team member to use. What I can tell you is it is very helpful to use Control-M in the mainframe platform because we can run and schedule many routines at the same time and we can create some scenarios. By these scenarios, we can run a lot of routines. We can build some scenarios and maintain this in the real world in production environment.

Regarding Control-M, what I can mention is I only know about the platform used nowadays for our team, and I believe it is a very archaic model. Probably there is another interface, better solutions and maybe with an interface easier to use on a daily basis. But what we have nowadays is something not so familiar for people that don't have a complete understanding about how to use.

Regarding Control-M, I'm not the one to use it directly, but I know it is a very powerful tool and very dynamic and helps us a lot on a daily basis. I believe the tools to schedule a routine in Control-M are very helpful. On a daily basis, we can use a lot without some problems. It's very easy to use.

It is necessary to take some time to learn Control-M. More or less a month to be familiar with the first steps. As you continue, you will increase your understanding about the feature and probably need more or less six months.

People in the first initial step need more or less one month to be familiar with some commands and start using Control-M tools. To feel comfortable using it on a daily basis without support, it takes more or less six months. This is the appropriate time to be able to use Control-M.

I have used another tool related to Control-M, but it is not so similar. It is something more related about running only individual routines one, two, or three routines at the same time. It is Topaz. It is a tool directly connected to the mainframe as well, but it is more destined to developers to build routines and programs and run these sources. It is not the same, but it is what I use on a daily basis when I need to run routines.

I have never experienced any issues such as lagging or crashing with Control-M.

The scalability of Control-M is adequate. We need to follow some steps to add some routines, but that's acceptable. What I know about this feature is it is reasonable to use when you need to add some new steps, schedule some new routines, or add some files. It is pretty nice and not a big deal to use.

I didn't need to contact the technical support or customer support for Control-M.

I would rate Control-M overall an eight out of ten. I believe you can put my company name as entity data. I'm a software engineer.