BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer Reviews

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.

I'm a Control-M analyst and we use the product for a data warehouse, for secure bank payments, banking applications, an externally accessed economics database, database housekeeping and various housekeeping tasks. We use it across Windows and Unix in lots of different areas where we need to coordinate the platforms, and also areas where the jobs that are running are critical so that if there's a problem we can know if they're not running correctly.

MFT takes a lot of activity and gives us a central point of control. You can do a lot of these activities without Control-M, using bespoke scripts, but the overhead is huge and simple changes become a nightmare. Control-M gives us a standardized solution.

The product works very well with the modules. For example, if you have  MFT, Managed File Transfer, or the old AFT, you can link that to processing jobs. You can use other modules as well and sort of control them for SAP or various other products. The alerting is very good, so you can send out SMS messages or emails to people if there's a problem overnight and they get an immediate alert. It has many, many features and is also very flexible. If a user came along and said, "I don't want to use it the way you're doing it, I want to do something completely different," that would be possible as there are many different options of ways to use the product.

The structure between the Control-M/Server and Control-M/Agent could possibly be improved. It would also be helpful if the deployment of Control-M/Agent could be simplified. Sometimes you can spend a lot of your day just doing the maintenance work to keep the system running. So that's something that could be improved. I think they could also improve the basic engineering of the server. The product has been around for a long time now, it's 30 years old, so most of the big issues were fixed a long time ago. Any issues now are not serious. The API that they recently introduced is very good and lots of people are using that. It's really about development for the future, which means improving the API. 

I would go back to the API in terms of additional features, in that they should expand the possibilities of the API. Not everything is possible with the API, and you've got utilities in all the controlling systems that are very powerful, but they're not all opened up to the API yet. I think they should really just expand the API to catch up with the rest of the system. 

I've been using this product for about 20 years. 

It's a stable solution, you very rarely get any serious outages. That's something they have improved a lot. Obviously it depends on the way people implement it. If the Control-M Server keeps falling over then that is obviously a problem but it will be an issue with the underlying platform itself, not Control-M. They have improved high availability now as part of Control-M, out of the box (if installed within certain parameters) so stability can be very good. 

The product is scalable. The licensing can be an issue, some people have licenses based on the number of agents. If that's what you have then that can be a barrier to the scalability. I know sites that are running maybe a million jobs per day, even more than that, and they don't report any problems. So yes, it is very good.

I don't often have to refer to the technical support because I know the product very well myself. Where I am located, they send us to Italy for support and Italian support is sometimes not so good. In general, there is a very good knowledge base on the product, and you can usually find your problem inside the BMC system or even on the website. So actually opening a ticket is almost a last resort option. 

We used Cron and Windows Task Scheduler, i.e. the platform supplied solution. They are not the same as using a centralized scheduler but they don't pretend to be.

The initial setup is very straightforward now, that's something they have improved. The installation is much better now and it's fairly simple. Basically you can download setup files and have the basic server installation done within maybe two hours. But if you want to use it correctly, the configuration is what takes you a long time and they should probably improve the documentation that they provide for administrators on that side. They have various programs where you can go and sign up as a new user, it's called the AMIGO program, and they will help you. They team you up with an existing user from another company and you can get advice with any problems you might be having. 

We used in-house expertise.

The product paid for its initial cost within 6 months of purchase and repays its annual license fee within 8 weeks.

Sign up for BMC Software's AMIGO program (help for new installs and migrations) and go for the license where based on number of total tasks.

Yes, we tested $Universe, Tivoli Workload Scheduler and the solution from Tidal Software.

The work is really on the configuration side. Installation is not a problem these days. Push it out as much as possible, to have a dedicated team and to decide that you're going to investigate enterprise completely and figure out where the automation will pay the quickest dividends because the return on investment is very quick on these kinds of products. Once you start to use them and you realize how useful they are, then you really make a big difference to the company and it can save a lot of money for many large organizations. Obviously there will be some situations where it doesn't make sense to use it because you're happy with your setup. But there are numerous elements of the business that would benefit that you might just have to get out to your users and ask how you can help improve the way day-to-day work is dealt with.

I would rate this product a nine out of 10. 

I am using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for transferring files.

The most valuable features of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer are the ease of use and the ability to watch the files as they transfer called Watch File Transfer. There is a separate monitoring window that is useful.

Before we transfer files we have to make the connection profile first for MFT. If we did not have to do this and send the transfer files directly, that would be useful.

I have been using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for approximately three months.

I rate the stability of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a seven out of ten.

I rate the scalability of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a seven out of ten.

The communication from the support is very helpful.

I rate the support from BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is easy, it took approximately one minute to complete.

I rate the initial setup of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a nine out of ten.

The implementation of the solution was done in-house.

I would recommend others follow the instructions given by the documentation and use it. That way, it is very simple to use.

I rate BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a ten out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is the data flow between our locations, between systems, and B2B data flow, which includes the data to the endpoints, the schemes and other lines. We deploy the solution on-premises.

For the IQ operation flow, we have to do a lot of planning with data resources and keeping the resources in front of the system. However, the solution has improved our organization by minimizing software dependency and managing data for our clients and regional schemes.

The file transfer, database, and integration features are the most valuable.

The solution can be improved by upgrading its features to compete with premium software in MFT. Additionally, Math and dollar features, along with product samples and VR functionalities, can be included in the next release.

We have been using the solution for approximately 15 years and are currently using version 20.200.

The solution is scalable. I rate it a nine out of ten.

The customer service and support team are very knowledgeable. I rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is quite easy and depends on the speed of the background. So basically, if you're in the background, it's an eight out of ten.

We have seen a return on investment. The solution has saved us about 30% to 40% on additional investments in resources.

I rate the pricing a seven out of ten because there is room for improvement.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is good, but its current functionalities can be upgraded. I recommend the solution to users considering it.

I use BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for file transfer management, which is its primary function.

What I like best about BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is that it makes transfers more secure and faster. My experience with it is good.

I also like that it has personal dashboards.

I also found the functionality of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer better, plus it has a recovery feature during failed file transfers.

An area for improvement in BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is integration. It should be compatible with more solutions. BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer should have integrations with newer applications as well.

I have fifteen years of experience with BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer, and I'm still using it.

I didn't see any stability issues from BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has good scalability.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has good technical support, as it has different engineers and consultants who resolve the issues.

My rating for BMC support is nine out of ten.

Positive

I chose BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer over the other solution because I know more about it, and it works better in terms of function.

Setting up BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is easy, so it's a ten out of ten.

As BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is a module, you install, implement, and run it in one day. It could take three weeks if you still need to install the solution that BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is on.

You'll get ROI from BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer after using it a few times rather than once because the initial cost is high. With this module, you can reduce mistakes and not lose money, so you'll see ROI within one year or less from BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer.

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is relatively inexpensive. It has reasonable pricing. What you pay for is the task or job, and as it's a module, it's complimentary, so you save about twenty percent of the job cost. For example, if the job costs $100, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer will cost $20.

Pricing-wise, the module is an eight out of ten.

I'm a software consultant and implemented BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer for different customers.

I've worked with older versions, from 6.4 to the latest version, 20.2, of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer.

Deploying the module requires two engineers and one project manager who'll check the results of the project execution.

My advice to others looking into using BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is that it's good to implement if you don't want to experience file transfer problems. The module has a tier that lets you transfer many files between different servers, so BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is essential in file transfer and file management projects. You must make sure that you follow the steps on how to use the module.

Overall, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is a nine out of ten because it's easy to understand and use, plus it has a lot of benefits to customers.

We are using the solution for maintaining the infrastructure jobs like database Genesys and NICE. All jobs have been integrated into a single frame and a BMC Control-M readme page. Basically, we create jobs and modify the jobs. We have to analyze if any jobs fail. We settle the issues so that the jobs are up to date and should run.

The solution can communicate with the cluster. It can redirect any alarms or failures, and we remediate those actions.

We create new job scenarios and workarounds. We have special access to incidents and monitor controller operations. 

The solution is good in terms of working with other products. The integration is useful. 

Once you understand the solution, the initial setup isn't too bad. 

The solution is stable. 

It's scalable. 

We need the updates to be able to maintain interoperability. We still want to be able to verify testing in production and the environment and want upgrades to go smoothly so as not to disrupt our applications. The more seamless it can be, the better remediation will go. 

We'd like it to be easier to maintain the administrative side. Transferring files should be easier. There are a lot of dependencies. We'd also like there to be less space consumption.

There's a bit of a learning curve for new users.

When we pull job applications, if we configure multiple tenants under multiple environments with a single frame while we are logging into the applications, it sometimes freezes and takes too much time. 

I've used the solution for about one year.

From what I have seen so far, it is stable and reliable. 

We do have frequent version upgrades and maintenance and therefore haven't seen many issues.

It's a scalable product. I'd rate it eight out of ten in the ability to scale. 

We have 11 people on our team and about four people who handle administration and maintenance tasks. We're in four regions: Australia, Singapore, India and New Zealand. In these regions, there are two configured clusters - one in Australia and one in New Zealand. 

We have an administrative team that has the privilege of raising technical support. We will do the Genesys part, however, for BMC, they run the people. They will take care of coordination with the vendor and the business unit.

We use a lot of different solutions, including Genesys, NICE, Control-M ESPL, WFM, and workforce management. All are interoperable.

The company has used this solution for about seven years, and I have only been around for one. I'm not sure why they first initiated usage.

The initial setup is easy once you have some experience. It can be somewhat difficult otherwise. 

We have four people that are able to handle maintenance tasks.  

Once our teams have tested and validated the scenarios are working fine, then they will move from Genesys into services. Once Genesys services have been integrated, Genesys engineers will come and will monitor everyday operations for Control-M. If they identify any files or any jobs that have instability, they'll look for a permanent fix.

We are mediators between the vendor and customers. 

We are using around version nine. I'm not sure of the exact version number. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I do need more time with the product. However, I haven't seen the product causing many issues. It's been sustainable, and we've liked having all operations in one single cluster.

The solution is mostly used for scheduling batches and file transfers.

The GUI is good if I'm comparing it to other scheduling products. All the add-ons are very useful, including the MFT databases, SAP plugins, and so on.

The cost of the license could be improved. 

I'd like to see MFT included as part of the overall product and not a cost add-on as AFT used to be included and they stopped supporting that and now have come up with MFT and you now have to pay for it separately.

I've been using the solution since 1998. It's been a while. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

I've used the solution in small sites and sites that run hundreds of thousands of jobs a day. It's pretty scalable. We have about 50 users, including developers and platform engineers, using this current iteration. The client is planning to increase the usage and the new licenses will be scaled accordingly.

Technical support has been very good. We are satisfied with the level of support.

Positive

I've worked with different clients and used different solutions. 

In terms of the ease of the initial setup, I'd say it depends on the use case, however, it can be quite complex, especially the on-prem version.

I'd rate the process a four out of five in terms of complexity.

We were able to deploy it within a month.

I am a consultant, so I can handle the initial setup myself.

The solution is a bit expensive. My understanding is that they offer yearly licenses, however, as a consultant, I don't directly deal with pricing. 

While the solution is currently on-premise, we are moving to the Helix Control-M on the cloud.

It's an excellent product. It's the best scheduling system out there, so I would recommend it.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use it for one-to-many and point-to-point security encryption. I started with version 6.2. After that, I used version 6.4, 7, 8, and 9. Currently, I am using version 9.20, which is a software as a service version. I deploy this solution on-premises and cloud.

Our customers find the self-service feature the most valuable. Control-M offers great value to businesses by providing an option to see different flows and control and orchestrate the sequence of the execution.

It is easy to use and integrate with different solutions. It is a good solution that is easy to implement and deliver.

Their support can be improved. I would like them to provide support in Spanish and have more knowledge.

I have been working with this solution for eight years.

It is stable. We haven't found any issues.

It has good scalability. Our clients are medium and big companies. Small companies cannot easily buy this solution because the cost is high.

Their technical support is good. It is easy to consult them, and they provide a lot of information about the reason for the issue. I would rate them an eight out of ten. I would like them to provide support in Spanish and have more knowledge.

It is very easy to set up. The deployment can take one to two months, but it depends on the number of tasks.

Its cost is high for small companies.

I would rate BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a nine out of ten. Our clients are happy with this solution.