We performed a comparison between Control-M and Microsoft Configuration Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Pega, BMC and others in Process Automation."The pressure on our operations and our maintenance has been reduced."
"The solution has the power to reduce resources, which is good for business. It is constantly updated to remain compatible with new technologies such as Amazon, Azure, and Google Cloud. It's very easy to take advantage of the compatibilities."
"The unified view where you can define, orchestrate, and monitor applications, workflows, and data pipelines is important because we have more than one team working on Control-M. We have a support team, a job-creation team, and a SAP team. We can all work together on it. It avoids anyone from working on his part and not using the latest modifications."
"The initial setup is largely straightforward."
"It has certainly helped speed things up."
"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."
"The ability to dynamically predict batch run time is so valuable."
"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."
"Technical support is very helpful and very responsive."
"It's helped us solve problems surrounding patching, installing, and reporting different patches, etc., on the virtual machines."
"We have found the scalability to be quite good."
"We are happy with the collaboration of SCCM with Patch My PC, which allows us to do patch work."
"Microsoft has done a good job with authentication solutions, such as single sign-on, or open authentication."
"Patching is very effective and reporting is very good."
"It saves a lot of money when you can install things automatically and they are installed the exact same way on every computer."
"The technical support is good."
"We develop software. More frequently, we are working with microservices and APIs, using our integration tool, MuleSoft. While Control-M is really a good tool to integrate with other tools, it is important for them to continue improving their microservices and API."
"Regarding product design and R&D, the DevOps pipeline could be improved with better capabilities and automation. API security and authentication is another area that could use improvement; users must have static credential passwords, which is a security concern."
"A Control-M on-prem license is based on the number of jobs, which is the number of tasks a particular customer wants to have. These tasks have to be run within 24 hours window. For example, if you have a license for 100 jobs, you can run a maximum of 100 jobs in a 24-hour window. If your operations could not run 10 jobs, and they ran only 90 jobs, they just carry over to the next day, but the next day, they will have 110 jobs. Control-M asks you to buy those 10 more licenses because you were out of compliance in terms of the number of licenses. This is something that needs to be indicated in Control-M GUI so that customers know the number of licenses they're going to use in this time window. Their support and documentation should be improved. I am not that satisfied with their customer support. Sometimes, they don't have the answers. Their documentation is very poor. It is not well written, and it is not in a very logical manner. You can use it on Unix, Linux, Windows, and AIX, but it needs some improvement on iSeries. It needs a built-in mechanism inside the system to give you an option to restore from the last point of failure. If a process crashes, the Control-M needs to have a mechanism in iSeries where the process can be restored from the last point of failure."
"We would recommend modernizing the look and feel of Control-M. They also need to move towards more self-service and development in their environment. It's very antiquated."
"It is a very strong product, but the reporting could be better."
"The initial setup was complex, because I wasn't used to it."
"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."
"It has a slight issue with daylight savings time while advancing the clock in the Spring."
"SCCM does not scale well, which is one of the reasons we are not going to continue to use it."
"I would like to see some improvements in WSUS and control of other, non-Microsoft, product updates."
"Not everything is readily available, and there are a lot of commands that are only executable via PowerShell."
"Management of Linux devices could be improved."
"It should provide the ability to remotely connect to mobile devices. There are some solutions that are doing that, but with Microsoft Intune, the only way to remotely connect to devices outside the organization and mobile devices is by using TeamViewer. It is pretty strange for a big company like Microsoft to not have something for that."
"The cost of the product can be improved."
"The solution does not support remote devices so the CMG is still required."
"One area of improvement is regarding the patching of Office 365 products. We have some difficulties on this side, and it can be improved."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Control-M is ranked 4th in Process Automation with 110 reviews while Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 2nd in Server Monitoring with 78 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Affordable, easy to use, and easy to understand". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, Automic Workload Automation and ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, BigFix, Tanium and Microsoft Intune.
We monitor all Process 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.
