We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Control-M based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Control-M comes out on top in this comparison. It is a very innovative and feature-rich solution and can be used to complete many diverse tasks and solve different issues, resulting in significant time savings and cost-effectiveness. Automic Workload Automation requires a bit of a learning curve, and some users tell us the web version is missing many of the solution's best features.
"It helps our efficiency because it is a batch processing tool which works without a menu."
"As far as our schedules, if we have problems, we can create our own process in the automation, which is good."
"You gain a lot of time and effort because you can automatize many things. Repetitive tasks costs us, so we can reduce them to zero effort and minimal costs by using the product."
"We do not have to use a broad variety of agents to connect to different types of systems."
"The user interface is very simple and straightforward."
"It improves the visibility of what is going on on the system. If I have a problem, it is easy to identify, understand dependencies, and identifying the root causes than just running through scripts and searching through applications or servers."
"We have seen big improvements in automation and automated tasks allowing our people to work on more important things for the company, as well as getting financial data quicker."
"The functionality is great, the scripting language is very powerful. They can adapt to most use cases. Very good community of different companies and a user base so when we have problems we can go to other people."
"The Control-M interface is good for creating, monitoring, and ensuring the delivery of files as part of our data pipeline. There's a wealth of information in both the full client, as well as the web interface that they have. Both are very easy to use and provide all the necessary material to understand how to do various tasks. The help feature is very useful and informative and everything is very easy to understand."
"You can let users access the system and manage jobs: self-service."
"We value Control-M mainly for the ability to control multiple nodes in a coordinated manner. Control-M has the ability to really coordinate across a lot of nodes."
"Control-M has improved application reliability and the SLAs in our company by quite a bit. You can see if problems are coming. If we have an SLA in a couple of hours, we know well before that couple hours if processing is behind, and it allows us to take some preventative action."
"Control-M has helped to improve our data transfers because it allows us to monitor the execution of the process. With other technologies, we cannot do that."
"It is very stable. We hardly get calls in respect to issues on Control-M, particularly on version 9.0.19."
"Technical support is very helpful and available 24/7."
"The initial setup is largely straightforward."
"In most of the packages available, it took time to study and gain knowledge of the features and resources due to poor documentation."
"There is one missing part in the product concerning recurring tasks. You can schedule a recurring task by a context action, and run it as recurrent, but it creates a time container which can be quit and disappears."
"Most of our issues are related to the system, not the job scheduling, such as, bugs and unexpected downtime of the application or database."
"We would like some advantages, which we had with the Java UI, with the automation engine."
"I am heading up the AWI. I desperately miss the possibility to show my read-only users on the Explorer side only their folders, not all the folders."
"Some of the usual features, like calendar details, are now not there."
"They should work to reduce pricing."
"There is a problem with the installation translation. It is some type of hybrid. We have some parts in German and some in English. It should be completely in German and completely in English. It should be better in the future."
"The reporting tool still needs a lot of improvement. It was supposed to get better with the upgrade, and it really didn't get better. It needs help, because it's such a useful thing to have. It needs to be more powerful and easier to use."
"The MFT applications should have more functionality and flexibility within that tool. Having more flexibility with that tool for handling the one to many or many to one concept. Like being able to take data from one source and push it to many locations or pull data from many locations and bring it back into a single source. That's why we still use our TPS program for the file transfers just because we don't have some of those capabilities available to us within MFT."
"The documentation could be improved, and I'd also like to see automatic upgrades."
"One feature I would like to include is in the middle of the monitoring domain. In the monitoring domain, if I have to update a number of jobs, the only way to do it is by manually clicking on each job. I would like a feature that allows me to do a mass update in the jobs, which I feel is still lacking."
"There is definitely room for improvement. Version 9.0.20 actually comes with a web-based interface, but there are still a lot of things unavailable with it. There will eventually be more inclusions added into the web interface, but there is still a long way to go."
"Everybody's biggest gripe is the reporting capability option. It is a gripe because there is a lot of information in Control-M, but the solution doesn't have a good reporting tool to extract that information. Now, if you want all that information, you need to rely on another third-party BI tool to extract the information out of Control-M."
"Advanced File Transfer (AFT) has limitations that cause us to use a bit more licensing than we feel is appropriate."
"The response time could be faster when you need a person to answer your questions. There are situations where availability becomes crucial."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Automic Workload Automation writes "A tool requiring an easy setup phase that provides its users with flexibility and flow chart visibility ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation, AppWorx Workload Automation and IBM Workload Automation, whereas Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Redwood RunMyJobs. See our Automic Workload Automation vs. Control-M report.
See our list of best Workload Automation vendors.
We monitor all Workload Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.