Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Control-M vs IBM Sterling File Gateway comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Aspera Managed File Transfer
Sponsored
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
13th
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Control-M
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
117
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (3rd), Workload Automation (1st)
IBM Sterling File Gateway
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Managed File Transfer (MFT) category, the mindshare of Aspera Managed File Transfer is 3.4%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Control-M is 4.1%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Sterling File Gateway is 12.3%, up from 11.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Managed File Transfer (MFT)
 

Featured Reviews

Michele Illiano - PeerSpot reviewer
Mar 23, 2022
Beneficial quick protocol, powerful, but limited use cases
Aspera Managed File Transfer should be packaged into another solution. Explaining to customers you need to have multiple solutions from multiple vendors for their use cases can get complicated for them to understand. The best way to propose a suite is to have an integrated suite where the customer could choose to license part of it. This solution could be one solution not two choices between 10 or 12 different solutions. The main feature of Aspera Managed File Transfer is the communication protocol, which is fast. There are a lot of different clients that are offering features related to these fast protocols. It's possible to create one unique suite that can handle this base protocol. It will be quite easy to propose to the customers.
Pedro Fuentes - PeerSpot reviewer
Jan 9, 2024
Cost-effective, excellent support, and centralized access and control
They have a department that handles requests for enhancements. I talked to Control-M guys back in October or November when they had a gathering here in Atlanta. We talked about not being able to go back in history in Helix Control-M for more than two weeks. We submitted a request for enhancement. They told us that they are working on it, and they are thinking of expanding that to 30 days. We would like to see it expand to 90 days, but they are working on it. In Control-M, we were able to go back 180 days, but that was on-prem. The storage of that data was on our own servers. We know that storage is money, and we do not expect them to store that much of the data, but at least 30 to 60 days seem proper.
Vinutha Gangadhara - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 14, 2024
Ability to customize on top of the inbuilt processes, user-friendly and well-categorized
I’ve been part of this client for the last seven-plus years. It’s been close to 70 to 80 continuous improvements we have delivered. The priority ones which we always shortlist are the recurring incidents or recurring issues, which came in the initial phase of the year when we took this entire landscape under our maintenance. One such incident I can recollect is with respect to performance tuning. We committed to our users 99.99% and above as the availability metrics for Sterling Integrator. This has acted as a high-availability system, but we treat it as mission-critical. When it comes to the commitment we give to users, we have to ensure the system is kept most stable. So, the majority of the problem was in the communication channels. Whenever we enabled additional logging for the communication channel, the system used to have hiccups. So we worked with the vendor, stating that the visibility channel framework needs to be changed because the moment we enable more logging, it literally brings the system down, or the system doesn’t work as it should. They took our input and delivered a better framework in their next releases, which helped us after upgrading to have that stability intact. As the system grows, we ensure to have performance tuning triggered and optimize the business process wherever required. For example, by default, Sterling Integrator business process will have full logging enabled. We took care of those things. Not all business processes or workflows require full logging enabled. Only a few critical ones require every step logs. For the rest, we categorized and reduced the logging for those workflows. That actually helped us to increase the IO overall from ten milliseconds to six milliseconds. That was a good achievement. Apart from that, in terms of queues, how we maintain the queues, how we defined all file queues across the critical business process is one thing we felt was done better. The threads we assign for the priority queues and the business processes were configured to those priority queues, whatever is critical, so that it gets high priority to allow the threads to process. So that queue thread Sterling was taken under the performance tuning. Apart from that, I think some of the best practices which IBM recommends is what we usually run through every year. We just have the health check done through IBM, and we just ensure that all the best practice recommendations are added in the system.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The main feature of Aspera Managed File Transfer is that it's an incredibly fast protocol, you can use all the bandwidth available. If I need to send large amounts of data this is the fastest protocol on the market. I have been using it for some minor projects and it is very powerful."
"Aspera Managed File Transfer is an optimal solution for customers who want to transfer large files to remote sites with lower bandwidth and in less time."
"Good user interface and ability to set up multiple file transfer jobs."
"Most valuable feature would be the ability to detect and notify when a process has not completed successfully."
"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."
"If a job fails, that development team is notified right away, which improves reliability. Previously, it was on the operators to notify the developers that their job failed, erred, or aborted. Now, it's all automated."
"We use Control-M for maintenance on our Oracle and SQL Server databases. It automates maintenance on packages, including standard procedures on the databases themselves, snapshots, checking integrity, verifying the RDBMS of the databases, etc. It ensures they aren't clogged and that they are running smoothly and that there aren't any jobs stuck, eating up the performance of the server or any of the CPU cores."
"It has a very good GUI. We can search for a job very easily. The web interface, user account creation, and access control are very good. From an access control point of view, we can provide access to as many users as we want. A second group of users can be given a certain number of features, according to the requirements. The web interface is very easy for end users to login and use. A lot of features have been added, e.g., adding jobs. They can add jobs to their stuff, whatever they want, then get it validated by the scheduling team and work it into production."
"The best part about this product is that it has a lot of features. Control-M doesn't limit us and we can use it for a lot of things."
"Control-M has helped us resolve issues 70% to 80% faster. It provides us with alerts instead of having someone go to that particular server and check the logs to determine where the issue is. We can simply click on the alert information, then everything is in front of us. This provides us with time savings, human effort savings, and process savings."
"The web interface is handy. It's easy to use, and Control-M provides you with the necessary materials to understand the features and perform various tasks."
"IBM Sterling File Gateway is user-friendly, allowing us to easily monitor and track file data."
"One feature that we appreciate or use for multiple customers is the routing channel."
"Very high functionality with the ability to plug in your own code."
"I like its ability to communicate in B2B scenarios."
"The most valuable aspect is that it has good functionality."
"The solution's most valuable features include the partner management capability, which centralizes all configurations and connections."
"I have found almost all the features valuable."
"This product has been a leader in the field of secure file exchange."
 

Cons

"Deployment is complex and it was difficult to get support."
"Aspera Managed File Transfer should be packaged into another solution. Explaining to customers you need to have multiple solutions from multiple vendors for their use cases can get complicated for them to understand."
"The solution's pricing is high and should be reduced."
"An issue we have run into in our lower environments is that Control-M can log you out frequently."
"The performance could be better. Control-M Enterprise Manager tends to slow the system down even on a server with a six-core processor and 32 gigabytes RAM. The console is Java-based, so maybe OpenJDK 16 or 17 would be a performance improvement."
"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."
"There are numerous boxes to tick and things to check to ensure everything is in order before the upgrade happens. The process is very long"
"The next major release needs to focus on the lightweight web client."
"The initial setup was complex, because I wasn't used to it."
"The infrastructure updates could use improvement. Some of the previous updates that we have run to get to version nineteen were troublesome. So, a more seamless upgrade path for the infrastructure components would be useful. I don't know if they have replaced that in version 20 or if version 20 has an easier path, but I would like to see the upgrade from one version to the next version be a little smoother."
"The stability of Control-M has Not been great. A big thing we've been trying to work on with BMC is observability. Modern applications should be observable and resilient, but we're finding that sometimes Control-M is not very resilient and many times Control-M is not very observable."
"The API capabilities could be expanded to make integration more versatile."
"I would like to see auto-deployment without service disruptions."
"Whenever we enabled additional logging for the communication channel, the system used to have hiccups."
"The product could be improved by offering native API capabilities and making the solution more user-friendly for larger, multi-node implementations."
"The admin console needs some work."
"Based on my experience, there's some room for improvement. We're currently using version 6.1.1, which has a limitation where files are purged after seven days. We have to restart the purge count manually through our standard procedure. This issue should be resolved in the latest version."
"The solution should provide content or videos explaining to freshers how to configure it and what every field means."
"The number of failed files number increases with high workflow so that needs improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Aspera Managed File Transfer is not an inexpensive solution. I am not aware of many competitors to determine how affordable the price is overall."
"Its pricing and licensing could be a little bit better. Based on my experience and discussions with other existing customers, everybody feels that the regular Managed File Transfer piece, not the enterprise one, is a little overpriced, especially for folks who already have licensed Advanced File Transfer. We understand that Advanced File Transfer is going away and is going to be the end of life, and there is some additional functionality built into MFT, but the additional functionality does not really correlate with the huge price increase over what we're paying for AFT already. This has actually driven a lot of people to look for alternative solutions."
"The cost is basically $100 a job, give or take."
"The cost of the hardware is high. Because you need to license each job, it is costly."
"As we increase the number of tasks or jobs on the system, there are concerns about cost."
"In our environment, pricing depends on the total number of maximum jobs that can run, which is fine. Therefore, if the number of jobs increases, then the licensing fees will increase."
"Pricing can be steep, but you get what you pay for."
"This is an expensive product compared to other solutions, although I think that it is a good one. We are in a good position with licensing, as we can run 10,000 jobs."
"The pricing is reasonable. It's not an exorbitant amount. The licensing is pretty reasonable for the number of jobs that we run."
"I do know that it's generally considered expensive, but it's also widely used across corporate organizations due to its robust protocol communication, secure file transfer capabilities, and integration features. Although there are other tools on the market, IBM Sterling File Gateway stands out for its unique options and cloud compatibility, which offers future benefits, particularly in avoiding data storage issues."
"The solution's pricing is reasonable."
"There are two types of customer licenses, an annual preview license, and an ELA-based license. I have found the solution is priced well. However, they need to review the pricing model because if you look at any other competitors, such as GlobalSCAPE, they do pricing based on the components and what you select. With this solution you have a monolithic application which you need to buy, there is no component level price discount."
"It's reasonably priced at $800,000."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions are best for your needs.
815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Insurance Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
36%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Aspera Managed File Transfer?
Aspera Managed File Transfer is an optimal solution for customers who want to transfer large files to remote sites wi...
What needs improvement with Aspera Managed File Transfer?
The solution's pricing calculation needs revision to be more competitive
What advice do you have for others considering Aspera Managed File Transfer?
Aspera Managed File Transfer has superior technology. Overall, I rate Aspera Managed File Transfer a nine out of ten.
How does Control-M compare with AutoSys Workload Automation?
Control-M acts as a single, centralized interface for monitoring and managing all batch processes, which is helpful b...
What do you like most about Control-M?
First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Control-M?
While it is quite flexible, the licensing cost could be more affordable, especially for small and mid-sized enterprises.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Sterling File Gateway?
The cost-effectiveness of IBM Sterling File Gateway was a major factor in our decision to use it, in comparison to th...
What needs improvement with IBM Sterling File Gateway?
The weakness is that the engines associated with the tool require too much expertise to master how they work. Finding...
What is your primary use case for IBM Sterling File Gateway?
I use the solution in my company since we have lots of different use cases attached to the tool. Mainly, we have inco...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Control M
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Gwinnett County Public Schools, Evonik, Voith, BITMARCK, Oracle
CARFAX, Tampa General Hospital, Navistar, Amadeus, Raymond James, Railinc
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Control-M vs. IBM Sterling File Gateway and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.