We performed a comparison between AppWorx Workload Automation and Control-M based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AppWorx Workload Automation is highly praised for its ease of use, straightforwardness, and dependability. Control-M shines in its ability to handle file transfers efficiently, integrate seamlessly with other systems, provide Role-Based Administration, and facilitate collaboration.
AppWorx Workload Automation users desire improvements in API integration and better integration with other tools. Control-M users have a broader range of improvement requests, such as bug fixes, customization options, and integration with third-party tools.
Service and Support: AppWorx Workload Automation has been praised for its excellent customer service, particularly its highly-rated technical support. Control-M has received mixed feedback. Some customers appreciate the prompt and knowledgeable support team, while others have faced slower response times and a lack of proactivity.
Ease of Deployment: The initial setup for AppWorx Workload Automation may seem complex to those unfamiliar with the system, however, it is considered relatively easy and straightforward. It requires administrator access and involvement in deploying the system with databases. Control-M's initial setup is generally described as straightforward and easy. Users find it easy to understand the architecture and install the software. However, there is a learning curve and manual conversion of jobs and scripts, which adds complexity and time to the process.
Pricing: AppWorx Workload Automation's setup cost depends on the number of orchestrated systems, resulting in higher expenses. Control-M's pricing and licensing have received varying feedback, with some users considering it uncomplicated and clear, while others perceive it as perplexing and costly.
ROI: AppWorx Workload Automation does not provide detailed information about the return on investment. Control-M has demonstrated reduced expenses, increased productivity, automation, and improved workflows, making it a valuable choice for businesses.
Comparison Results: Control-M is the favored choice when comparing it to AppWorx Workload Automation. It is commended for its user-friendly interface, extensive capabilities in managing workflows and data pipelines, and valuable features including Managed File Transfer and Role-Based Administration. Users also value the helpful guides and videos provided by Control-M.
"The automated solution is the most valuable piece. Otherwise, we would have to be doing everything manually on every server."
"The solution is very user friendly so anyone can use it."
"Scheduling is a good feature."
"It is an object-based approach to task and process design in conjunction with conditional logic and event-based scheduling actions, which enables a build once/use often design methodology to be employed."
"It is really a robust product."
"The interface is good."
"It has improved my organization through automation of back office and infrastructure procedures, and by integrating and orchestrating key business applications spanning multiple technology stacks."
"The most valuable features of AppWorx Workload Automation are simplicity and reliability. Additionally, they recently transformed the UI which is better."
"It can do anything that I need. We do real-time jobs. We also do jobs that have to run at certain times. I have not been presented with a scheduling need that I was not able to do. It is very flexible and dynamic."
"The File Watcher utility, cyclic jobs, and email alert notification are valuable."
"Workload Archiving is a very good feature for us. It helps with our customer requirements in terms of reporting and auditing... Previously, when we didn't have any archive server, we managed the data in Control-M with man-made scripts, and we would pull the data for the last 365 days, or three or four months back. Since we installed the archiving, we have been able to pull the data, anytime and anywhere, with just one click."
"The integration with ServiceNow is good. When a job ends and there are problems with it, we automatically open an incident in this platform, and the number of the incident is forwarded to Control-M. This means that we have a record of it with the log of the job."
"The pressure on our operations and our maintenance has been reduced."
"It gives us the ability to have end-to-end workflows, no matter where they're running."
"As soon as you have an issue, a ticket is created and the tech support is quite responsive."
"Automation of the batch jobs is the most valuable feature."
"It has been a deprecated product, because it is so old. There has been a couple of new solutions that are a little more advanced."
"The graphical interface is pretty cool but not the best so it could use some improvement."
"It is difficult to integrate with the Active Directory (AD)."
"It is not really scaling per say because they are not putting much into it. They are trying to push their new product."
"As a general process automation and integration tool, it has been superseded by other offerings, notably the Workload Automation suite."
"We are looking for additional features that would allow us to call APIs and integrate the product with other tools more effectively."
"The scalability could improve."
"Reporting, forecasting and intelligence could be improved."
"After we complete FTP jobs, those FTP jobs will be cleared from the Control-M schedule after the noon refresh. So, I struggle to find out where those jobs are saved. Then, we need to request execution of the FTP jobs again. If there could be an option to show the logs, which have been previously completed, that would help us. I can find all other job logs from the server side, but FTP job logs. Maybe I am missing the feature, or if it is not there, it could be added."
"Control-M doesn't have any dynamic reporting facilities or features."
"The stability could be improved. I ran into an issue with a recent Control-M patch. The environment would become unstable if security ports were scanned. This is an area they need to improve on, but ultimately it's a relatively small improvement."
"Their technicians should be more involved when we're applying new technology to Control-M, such as cloud. We're working with cloud right now, with AWS, and getting the attention of a technician, sometimes, can take some time. It would be nice if they had somebody assigned to it. Dedicated support."
"With earlier versions, the support was not accurate or delivered in a timely manner. What would happen is that I would be in production mode and I would have an issue and would want to get someone on a call to see what was happening. But they would always say, “Hey, provide the log first and then we'll review and we'll get back to you." I feel that when a customer asks about a production issue, they should jump onto the call to see what is going on, and then collect the logs."
"The reporting functionality needs a lot of work. We have faced problems with different versions where we run the right report, but it gives us blank entries. Then, when we run the same report again, it gives the correct data."
"I would like to have a web version of Control-M to replace the client. Currently, our support and jobs-creation teams are using the client and that needs to be installed on a PC. It's very heavy, consuming a lot of resources compared to the web portal. I know that they're trying to improve the client with the latest version, but for me, there hasn't been enough improvement yet."
"Reporting in Control-M could use improvement."
AppWorx Workload Automation is ranked 17th in Workload Automation with 7 reviews while Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews. AppWorx Workload Automation is rated 8.0, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AppWorx Workload Automation writes "The scheduling tool and finance module are valuable features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". AppWorx Workload Automation is most compared with Automic Workload Automation, AutoSys Workload Automation, Automic Automation Intelligence, Stonebranch and OpCon, whereas Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Automic Workload Automation. See our AppWorx 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.
