External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
We are a cloud service provider, and we have been using Control-M for integrating and automating the orchestrating applications in the data workflow in our production. This is the main use case for our flow.
We are using its cloud version, Helix Control-M.
Helix Control-M has helped us schedule the jobs and manage our workload. We save time in running the jobs. There is no impact on the software even if I schedule a hundred jobs at a time. It can accommodate all kinds of jobs. It helps to meet our large-scale requirements.
Helix Control-M’s ability to build, schedule, manage, and monitor application and data workflows in production is good. It is pretty straightforward. It integrates well with different applications, such as AWS, GCP, and various cloud providers, enabling job scheduling directly from the Helix Control-M interface without any agents. Integration is very easy.
We have a single pane of glass for scheduling and viewing job status. We get all the details in one window. We can schedule everything in one window. We did not have any downtime with the Helix Control-M. All the jobs have been running perfectly. Everything is smooth and straightforward.
We are mainly using the AWS Cloud, and we also have some GCP services. We can monitor all the details under the History tab. We can see all the past jobs.
Helix Control-M gives our company’s business users visibility and control over their jobs and frees up IT personnel for other tasks.
Helix Control-M is very critical for our business. We rely on it. We do not want any other scheduler. It provides us with everything.
Helix Control-M has contributed to the overall stability of our applications and improved user experience. It has taken away some of the administration work.
The flexibility of Helix Control-M allows us to manage tasks efficiently. The user interface is comprehensive and lets me view all my jobs on one page, monitor everything, and access the job history. The UI is superb and flexible to use.
Scheduling multiple jobs at a time is a standout feature.
There should be an expansion in storing more data as it currently provides data storage for only up to 60 days.
There can be some complexities with the UI part, especially with the advanced features. Other than that, it has been pretty good.
I have been using it for almost two and a half years.
The stability of the Helix Control-M solution is good. I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.
We also have access to their support. If we face any issues, we get support from them. Everything is good and working as expected.
Helix Control-M is scalable. It is being used by many people in our organization.
We have more than a hundred jobs running, and we have almost eight people managing it. We also have 3-4 end users using it.
The technical support is very polite, helpful, and available 24/7. I would rate them a ten out of ten.
Positive
Before Helix Control-M, we used different solutions. We previously used IBM Workload Automation but switched to Helix Control-M because it provides a comprehensive solution for everything and is very manageable without needing a dedicated person. Anyone can learn it. Its learning curve is very small.
The migration to Helix Control-M was straightforward. We did not face any issues.
The initial setup was straightforward. It took about three or four months to settle down. It is also not difficult to maintain.
We received support from BMC tech support and did not require any third-party consultants. We had six or seven people for the deployment of the solution.
The main return on investment with Helix Control-M has been a reduction in downtime and minimization of manual interventions, which has improved our operational efficiency.
The pricing is moderate, not too low or too high compared to other solutions.
We evaluated multiple solutions, including ActiveBatch, before choosing Helix Control-M.
The pricing was similar, but we found Helix Control-M better in terms of job automation and features. Their support was also very good. We got help from them with the orchestration and migration.
Before implementing the solution, thoroughly try out how it works in your current environment.
My overall rating for Helix Control-M is an eight out of ten.
The most valuable feature is the automation process. Manual tasks like scanning claims at a hospital or dispensary are automated with Control-M, greatly reducing time and effort for processing and saving data. This process previously consumed a lot of time when done manually.
I have around 13.5 years of experience in both scheduling and administration with Control-M.
There are no stability issues mentioned, and everything is automated. In case of application failure, I get involved, otherwise, the monitoring team takes care of the operations.
The support was better previously. Nowadays, the support is less responsive and accurate, unlike the past ten years when the solutions and responses were much more reliable.
Negative
Other tools I compare with include AWS, Redwood, and TWS. However, Control-M stands out due to its user-friendly graphical interface, unlike TWS, which is command-based and hard to use.
On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the initial setup of Control-M a ten out of ten due to my familiarity with the tool. However, some users face difficulties with the web interface.
I am the architect along with two other team members who work with Control-M. We handle design, including servers, databases, and connections.
Other solutions considered include AWS, Redwood, and TWS.
I would definitely recommend Control-M because it is a reliable tool expected to remain relevant for the next twenty to thirty years. I rate it ten out of ten.
In my organization, I use BMC Control-M as the primary workflow orchestration tool.
we don't use BMC Managed file transfer
Its stability and the feature list are rich compared to other tools in the market. I have experienced a thirty percent reduction in operational time for developers, increasing efficiency in workflow orchestration design. The UI is great, with a minimal learning curve and caters to both click-and-monitor users and those who want to code.
I would love to see REST API integration and more plugins for Google Cloud Platform in addition to AWS and Azure. There are fewer plugins for GCP compared to the other two major cloud providers, which I think would add flexibility for customers whose choice is GCP.
I have been working with BMC Control-M for around 16 years in different roles.
BMC Control-M is stable, and my experience with it has been positive.
Control-M scales well but EM stays on a single VM. I would love to see the components split up as containers of to multiple Virtual Machines.
Support is pretty good for priority tickets, although there is a lot of back-and-forth communication for low-priority ones. I would still rate it as a eight out of ten.
Positive
Control-M was always the go-to workflow orchestration solution where I work.We have checked out Rundeck open source and Apache Airflow for certain use cases. I also know friends in different organizations using Autosys, UC4, and Atomic, but nothing matches Control-M's capabilities.
Installation is straightforward, and there is ample documentation and customer support from BMC is helpful too in troubleshooting issues. Configuration could get highly complex based on your environment, but default configuration is easy and works well.
For deployment, one person with good OS and application knowledge and good should do with a little help from a database administrators. Two is an optimal number to maintain and run.
Negotiate based on task and ask for a better price where non prod tasks could be charged a lower price.
Control-m was there before I started working in the current organisation , Fow now, we haven't checked any vendor-based tools.
I would rate BMC Control-M a nine out of ten. Build self service portals using the existing API endpoints to make provisioning easier.
We use Control-M for ACS and Azure services as it has inbuilt cloud integration. We have a product that works on government databases where we use data scraping and then integrate it with Azure and OpenAI. This integration allows us to process data and get insights. We also use AWS services to save the processed data in the AS.
Control-M is a bit faster compared to other solutions. The job and coding are easier. Also, my DevOps and Ops teams work collaboratively with it, enhancing its efficiency. The workflow is much easier compared to the ACS services we were using. Automation is more advanced, deployment is fast, and version control has been simplified.
They should have a proper integration method that clearly defines the workflow. Additionally, there should be an automation system for developers to set it up more easily and quickly. My Ops team faces certain problems that need addressing.
I have been using Control-M for four to five months.
The downtime is higher compared to AWS. Indexing and databasing are more challenging, and the endpoint sometimes gets reset automatically. The accuracy rate is about 80% to 85%.
As we hire new interns and DevOps partners to scale our business, Control-M scales well with the enterprise's growth. As the workload on Control-M increases, its scalability is much higher. Its cost is very low.
I never had direct communication with technical support because solutions are available on the web. We didn't have a one-on-one conversation, but the support is adequate through online resources.
Neutral
We migrated from AWS to Control-M. It was more cost-effective and capable compared to AWS services. We were a startup with limited resources.
The setup was manageable with certain experienced DevOps staff, making it easy to deploy on the local server.
There was an built-in DevOps team that found Control-M more cost-effective and capable than AWS services.
New users should have a comprehensive understanding of how BMC and Control-M operate. Good coding skills are essential, as well as utilizing open-source codes. Monitoring should be done by someone knowledgeable about the system. I would rate Control-M a seven out of ten.
I am using Control-M for cloud infrastructure and automation-related tasks. As a cloud engineer, my work involves scheduling, deploying, managing, and monitoring processes for infrastructure and workflows. It is integrated with a CI/CD toolchain as part of our DevOps culture.
I am using the cloud version. I am using Helix Control-M.
Control-M has good integration capability. It integrates well with all the solutions. It also has good reporting capabilities.
Control-M has improved our organization's functions by supporting high availability and integrating with CI/CD workflows. It helps maintain high availability and manage workflows across the production environment, increasing our productivity.
Additionally, Control-M has offered broad-level exposure that has increased our efficiency. Our workflows run smoothly. Everything is easy. We have had very positive feedback.
Control-M is fine to integrate with our DevOps toolchain. It is neither difficult nor easy.
Control-M made it more simple to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines across on-premises and cloud technologies. It is very comprehensive.
Control-M provides workflow orchestration, including scheduling, deploying, managing, and monitoring workflows. It helps us meet our service-level agreements. It is integrated into our CI/CD pipeline. It enhances our operational productivity.
The UI can be challenging for new users due to its learning curve. Additionally, there are some errors during automation. More detailed logs would be helpful.
We would also like enhanced API support. The APIs should be more comprehensive.
I have been using Control-M for almost two and a half years.
Control-M is stable so far, with no issues regarding crashing or lagging.
Control-M is very scalable. It can absorb more workload wherever needed.
We have had occasional response issues with their customer service. They do not always provide timely support.
Neutral
We have used Redwood RunMyJobs and Apache Airflow. Control-M offers more features under one umbrella. It has cloud-native support, real-time analytics, and other features.
The initial setup was challenging due to network setup issues and a lack of timely support from the service team. Its implementation took about a month. We did not have any downtime.
We did the deployment in-house without using an integrator or consultant.
Pricing is generally affordable, though some features cost a bit more.
New users should familiarize themselves with the tools and undergo training. It is essential to understand the necessity of using Control-M in your organization. I would recommend starting with your workflows and gradually integrating it with all the tools.
I would rate Control-M an eight out of ten.
The main use is for job scheduling. We are using Control-M to manage and schedule various jobs within our organization.
We are more comfortable with Control-M since we have people who know this tool well. It integrates seamlessly with other tools within our ecosystem.
The best aspects of the solution are the ecosystem and integration part. This makes Control-M particularly valuable for us.
Control-M could benefit from incorporating AI features for better job scheduling. For example, if a job fails, the system could automatically manage related failures and take remedial actions without manual intervention. This would make it more advanced.
I have been using Control-M in my current organization for the last six months.
We did not face any stability issues with Control-M. It has been very stable for our needs.
Scalability is very subjective to use cases. For our minimalistic use cases, Control-M is quite scalable. However, for larger use cases, such as those in banking where there are thousands of jobs, scaling might be different.
Customer support from BMC is good but not excellent. We always expect more from support, so I would rate it between three to nine on a scale of one to ten.
Positive
Before Control-M, there might have been an IBM scheduling tool in use. I am unsure why the switch happened as I have only seen Control-M being used since I joined.
The initial setup was straightforward. It did not require much effort as we had knowledgeable people in the team.
One person is generally enough for the installation and configuration parts. It typically takes around one day to complete the installation.
We found Control-M to be one of the best solutions available. I would recommend incorporating AI features for future improvements.
I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
Control-M significantly reduces manual errors and enhances automation. It provides better scalability and more efficient data processing, making it a highly reliable solution for daily job operations.
Control-M can cross all platforms and offers integration for container and cloud solutions. This versatility is very helpful for my customers. The job scheduling capabilities are extremely convenient and easy to use, making Control-M a superior solution compared to others in the market.
I have no immediate ideas for improvements. I do not have any specific suggestions for additional features that should be included in the next release.
I have been using Control-M for about a year.
We do not encounter significant stability issues with Control-M. It runs jobs daily with stable performance.
Control-M is highly scalable. It offers complete functionality, making it an excellent choice for handling extensive operations.
Customer support is very responsive and efficient. If you open a case, it can usually be handled within one to two hours, especially for urgent issues. Their support is available in real-time and resolves issues promptly.
Positive
The initial setup of Control-M is easy and not difficult.
I always implement Control-M on-premises.
The pricing for Control-M is very expensive. It would be beneficial if the price could be reduced.
If your organization aims to reduce manual errors and enhance automation, Control-M is a suitable choice. It minimizes the risk of operational errors and missing processes, offering better scalability and automation.
I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
We can recommend it for all domains, such as banking, insurance, or telecom. Whatever the customer needs, it can handle without any issues and is highly secure for file transfers. It supports all transfer protocols and methods and can integrate with external MFT solutions from different providers. Control-M will fulfill all requirements.
Whether distributed or mainframe jobs generate files, they use Control-M for file transfers. However, if they are not using Edge jobs or any JIT process outside of the Control-M schedule, those areas do not use Control-M. However, distributed or mainframe jobs generate files that need to be transferred to another system using Control-M.
We use encryption detection methods and various monitoring methods to check files and ensure they meet all business criteria. If a zero-byte file is detected, we can handle it. We use file watchers to monitor and transfer files between source and target, whether the environment is homogeneous or heterogeneous, on-prem to cloud or cloud to on-prem.
Improvements could be made in naming conventions, such as adding dates and timestamps to filenames after replacing them. While the auto-delete function exists, enhancing it further could be beneficial. For example, when using SSH or WMA connections to transfer files, more detailed logs could be provided, specifying exactly where issues occurred. A pre-transfer check that warns if the file size is too large for the available target server space could be useful.
These enhancements are expected to be included in the upcoming 9.0.22 version of BMC Control-M.
I have been using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for five years.
Control-M allows team members to manage file transfers without any file size limit as long as the target server has sufficient space. If the target server lacks the necessary space, the transfer will fail with an error indicating insufficient space.
The tool itself does not impose any restrictions on file size, so you can transfer files of any size without limitation, provided there is adequate space on the target server.
BMC technical support is highly effective and responsive to concerns and questions. With the hybrid model, including BMC Helix Control-M MFT and BMC OneCloud, they support SaaS solutions, managing all patching, installations, and maintenance tasks. Using Helix, BMC can open necessary ports for customers, ensuring seamless access to the Helix environment. This approach minimizes the need for customers to handle patching and advanced maintenance themselves. BMC also ensures high availability and performs all required updates and support, providing a streamlined experience for users.
Positive
Currently, we have a B2B webMethods MFT solution for file transfers and script-based file transfers with specific security commands. Script-based methods offer limited GUI and tracking features.
We have not used them extensively in the last six or seven years. Since adopting Control-M, we have transitioned all non-standard file transfer methods to Control-M, which provides more comprehensive features and tracking capabilities.
We are not paying separately for MFT. It comes included with the contract, license, and software package. In addition to Control-M, we also use Informatica and other control modules. The MFT functionality is automatically included with the software package, so it has no separate cost.
Control-M is not just for file transfer; it integrates with all file-related jobs in downstream systems, including file generation, file transfer, and file usage. These processes run smoothly together, allowing us to meet KPH, PAs, and VNSLS SLAs. If you use a different tool for MFT, without proper control, there could be time delays. This might require adding buffer time between the file generation, file transfer, and file usage jobs, causing delays. With Control-M, there won't be any delays, as all three jobs run together seamlessly, ensuring no time lapse.
Compared to script-based or other file transfer methods, Control-M offers a more streamlined process that doesn’t require extra support for file transfer tasks. Those managing the Control-M tool can handle file transfers and perform necessary checks. The integration includes a web or self-service portal, allowing customers to track file transfers and check their status, even from a web view. Unlike other tools where only the production support or technical team can monitor file transfers, Control-M allows users with appropriate credentials to verify whether a file transfer was successful.
This is especially beneficial for reporting tool users like PowerBI, Cognos, or BusinessOptics, where data files are transferred from the source system to the reporting tool. Report users who refresh data manually can check if the file transfer was successful and, if necessary, rerun the job, ensuring their reports are updated on time without needing support from the technical team.
Control-M offers excellent file management. In my current customer environment, more than 90% of file transfers are handled by Control-M, with only 5% to 10% done using internal mechanisms within AWS or Azure for cloud-specific transfers. For transfers within AWS, between applications, a small portion of the files is transferred outside Control-M. However, most file transfers go through Control-M, and the customer is satisfied because they don't need to pay extra for the product or support team. Control-M also handles email service and business view integration, allowing users to monitor and resolve file size, space, network, protocol, certification, and public key problems on-premises without additional support.
Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
Our organization works with the cloud and databases. Our primary use case for Control-M is automating orchestration and scheduling jobs across the cloud and on-prem. We use it to monitor and report on jobs. We also use the index to integrate with the cloud service. It leverages our ability to manage workloads across various cloud platforms like AWS and GCP.
Implementing Control-M saved us time by reducing our manual intervention. We can divert more resources to meaningful work. It reduced the amount of manual intervention needed by 30 to 35 percent.
In addition to improving efficiency, workflow orchestration enhances our integration with other tools. We can orchestrate across on-prem and cloud environments and reliably create and integrate data pipelines. Workflow orchestration is critical to our DevOps. Control-M is constantly surveying the network.
The most valuable features of Control-M are automation and orchestration. It allows a different schedule, and we can manage thousands of jobs. It ensures we can complete them on time accurately. This automation reduces our manual intervention, significantly reducing error.
Control-M should receive more notice when it releases new features. The user interface is also a bit complex, and the navigation should be streamlined.
I have used Control-M for a year and a half.
I rate Control-M eight out of 10 for stability.
I rate Control-M nine out of 10 for scalability.
I rate Control-M support eight out of 10.
Positive
We used Broadcom before switching to Control-M. The migration was a little complex.
Deploying Control-M is somewhat complex. It's easier to convert to the other tool. We spent more than two weeks on the deployment and received some support from the Control-M side. We had almost five teams of people working on it. First, we set up the environment. Then, we ran the installation and reconfigured the database. After that, we did functional and integration testing.
Switching to Control-M reduced our total ownership cost.
Control-M isn't cheap, but this is an enterprise model.
I rate Control-M nine out of 10. I will recommend it. It's easy to integrate and has the flexibility we need.
We predominantly use Control-M SAP R3 jobs. That's our primary batch job load with external vendors and internally on our AWS instance. That's our batch load alongside a few custom integrations. They are not public applications. It's all in-house applications. We have integrations and API integrations for the API hubs, which speak to multiple other applications within our next case.
We also use MFT enterprise for secured file transfer and management.
It isn't the only point of failure, but Control-M handles our business-critical, priority-one applications. We have other options. Control-M runs the SAP side for all batches. The time needed to realize the benefits depends on the scale and complexity.
One use case was in health care and involved shipment orders. With Control-M controlling the workflow, we could effectively monitor it and forecast any delays. This enabled us to deliver critical products in under four hours across hospitals in the network.
We can apply the same standards and run the same set of jobs across environments. Once they are tested in the non-production environment, we can move them seamlessly to the production environment.
We have a nightly process of batch reports. Before Control-M, we spent around 12 hours manually scheduling reports in SAP. After streamlining the process, we reduced manual work to nine and a half hours. The business could update all the processes before midnight.
While it doesn't totally free up IT personnel, it provides visibility into self-service tools where business users can see their pipelines or job streams. It would be read-only access for the business side, but to take action on the job, they still need to contact the IT team.
Control-M doesn't facilitate collaboration between business and IT users, but It provides a better user experience. Both parties can see what they are talking about, so there's no black zone for any of the parties. Before Control-M, the functional team had a particular nomenclature to relate what they had seen on Control-M. With the self-service tool, they can simply relay the job name. The collaboration starts there, and it builds over with a lot of other parameters.
Control-M provides a centralized view of our enterprise workload. As the owner, I can access my dashboard and see the status of jobs across the enterprise. It is strong at integrating with different applications and creating a pipeline of dependencies across applications on different operating systems.
When it comes to developments where we have to move across regions or environments, it seamlessly integrates and adapts to different regions. Regarding integration with the DevOps pipeline, it allows us to use a JSON file and promote it across environments easily.
We use Control-M to deploy workflows for DataOps and DevOps initiatives. It allows us to quickly test workflows or configuration changes without much manual effort. We add the JSON file for the conversation parameters and let the system handle the schedule. Integrating other DevOps tools within the journey gives us the management perspective and approval of multiple pipelines.
I'm currently working on the SaaS version, but I've also worked on the on-prem versions before. There is a handful of features that haven't been added to the SaaS version, and the BMC knows that. It's a matter of time before they prioritize the missing pieces and bring them into the SaaS version.
I started using Control-M back in 2008
Control-M has the best stability in the market. They claim 99.99 percent availability. It's hardly four hours of downtime throughout the year.
Control-M is infinitely scalable. We only need to add agents. BMC will take care of it if you need anything on the SaaS side, but we can handle the rest using our agent architecture.
I rate BMC support 10 out of 10. They are stringent about their SLA timelines. They respond on time, and if it's a priority one, they will call immediately.
Positive
We previously used the SAP Scheduler and adopted Dollar Universe. All our local manual efforts ran in Windows Scheduler.
It was a greenfield approach, and I was there from day one as a consultant. Deploying Control-M can be easy or difficult, depending on what the business needs. It takes a while to understand the infrastructure setup our business needs and the number of jobs we need to run through this application.
It took a while to understand the infrastructure setup we require. We had to understand the number of jobs running through this application and how business-critical they are. The documentation BMC provides is top-notch and covers every step we must follow.
Migrating to Control-M is a bit tricky in terms of preparing the data and having the right tool to convert required parameters into a Control-M-ready job. Control-M has a feature called AMIGO that helps us migrate from the existing source. Converting a job and loading it into our Control-M format isn't straightforward. We must do some prerecorded checks and setups before.
There is some maintenance in the form of updating agents and deploying patches on the SAP application. Since it's a SaaS application, BMC handles most of the maintenance on the server side.
The license model is based on the number of jobs we run on the SaaS application or the number of executions, unlike the on-premise model options. If we have a handful of jobs, it's always good to consider Control-M, but if it's a large number of jobs, Control-M might not be a great option.
Control-M enables us to consolidate our jobs, and it helps us have a uniform approach and schedule. It helps to have the audit logs available. The scheduler space is nice in terms of control.
We attempted to leverage ActiveBatch by Redwood and a few other options, but Control-M had all the features we needed. It gives us a 360-degree view of our implementation across silos. The architectural requirements also vary depending on the criticality of the applications.
Control-M allows us to customize the job templates for any application we need, which covers all our future plans. Its integration speed is excellent because it has templates for every application.
I rate Control-M 10 out of 10. New users will be fine if they follow the Control-M documentation. There's also a book you can buy on Amazon called "Batch Scheduling" that comprehensively covers batch operations and how BMC has evolved over time.