We performed a comparison between Control-M and UiPath Orchestrator based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Workload Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Control-M is useful to automate all critical and non-critical processes. Using Control-M, we can automate application workflows as well as file transfers involved in application workflows. We can also use it to run batches related to applications. Automating these processes reduces the RTO and RPO, which helps in the case of failures. It also helps us to identify bottlenecks and take corrective measures."
"It is very easy to use. The HA feature is also very good."
"The most valuable features are the GUI console, stability, and workflow."
"The multiple scheduling options allow you to do anything you want, whenever you want, and however you want. You can easily be in control when things happen."
"Cross-platform support: A Linux job can be dependent on a Windows job, which can be dependent on many other flavours of hardware/software. Your batch is therefore managed by a single tool, allowing you to monitor your entire flow."
"The File Watcher utility, cyclic jobs, and email alert notification are valuable."
"Ability to handle files remotely through the advanced file transfer feature."
"We have a better picture of our auditability. When someone comes to us, and asks for sources, "How did the deltas occur?" We can provide answers quickly, or at least quicker than what we used to. We are actually sure of the information that we provide, where before it was like, "Hmm, I think it comes from over there. Let me double check, but it gets really convoluted over here and I think that is where it comes from." Now, if it is within the Control-M environment, it has a straightforward answer that we can provide with confidence."
"The response time and support quality are good."
"UiPath Orchestration works effectively in deploying, scheduling, and running automated bots across different environments."
"The platform serves as a valuable tool for orchestrating solutions within an organization."
"UiPath has one of the strongest community setups."
"The centralized dashboard and asset management in UiPath Orchestrator have proven valuable in enhancing operational efficiency."
"It was very simple to use and allowed us to easily record and manage activities."
"One standout feature I like in UiPath Orchestrator is the scheduling capability."
"From what I have seen, it is a reliable tool."
"Some of the documentation could use some improvement, however, it gets you from point A to point B pretty quickly to get the solution in place."
"A lot of businesses are using ServiceNow, which is another tool. I would like there to be some integration with ServiceNow or other third-party tools as well as have easily available integrations. Right now, we need to write scripts. Apart from that, if there were some integrations with an ITSM tool, then that would be good. Because at the end of the day, most of our clients are using different ITSM tools. I know that BMC Remedy is easy to integrate with Control-M. However, if there was availability for Jira as well as other ITSM and DevOps tools, that would be a good improvement."
"You need to pay for extra features if you need them."
"I'm not sure how the solution fits together with our business modernization initiatives, as there are things outside of my area, even though Control-M is the scheduling tool of the company. They may use other things, e.g., Big Data."
"Its architecture is old. AutoSys gives more flexibility."
"Integration with some applications and platforms is complex and requires development. We have done some integration with the application integrator, but it was more like a manual solution. This is an area that can be improved."
"The initial setup was complex, because I wasn't used to it."
"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."
"It is challenging to accurately define text within images for the product."
"Clarity on integrating SQL databases and server configurations would improve implementation processes."
"UiPath Orchestrator should improve its UI and make it more user-friendly."
"The product must provide process mining features."
"The code management for the Studio could be improved."
"They could provide a more intuitive UI for the product."
"The vision libraries that the tool provides, along with the visualization part, are areas with shortcomings in the solution where improvements are required."
"The credential vault is generic and does not have process categorization. The tool needs to arrange a Customer Success Manager for support. It should also improve the credential manager and integrate a customized form of retrieving the details. There should be more dashboards as well."
Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews while UiPath Orchestrator is ranked 11th in Workload Automation with 22 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while UiPath Orchestrator 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 UiPath Orchestrator writes "A user-friendly and reliable tool that is easy to implement". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, Automic Workload Automation and ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas UiPath Orchestrator is most compared with . See our Control-M vs. UiPath Orchestrator 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.
