Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
Control-M Logo

Top 10 Control-M Alternatives

Vendor: BMC
4.4 out of 5
Badge Ranked 1
1,858 followers
Post review

Top Control-M Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Control-M based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Camunda, Appian, and Pega Platform. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

Control-M surpasses its competitors by offering robust automation capabilities, intuitive user interfaces, and seamless integration with various platforms, ensuring streamlined workflows and increased productivity for organizations relying on efficient and reliable workload automation.

BMC Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with BMC, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
Control-M Logo
Camunda
4.1 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Camunda
4.1 out of 5
Control-M offers extensive AS400 integration and excels in workflow orchestration, ideal for industries like banking. In comparison, Camunda is strong in process modeling with BPMN standards, appealing to businesses seeking flexibility without deep programming expertise, making it suitable for diverse project scales.
Download Camunda vs. Control-M Report
Control-M involves higher setup costs, reflecting its advanced features, while Camunda is more cost-effective, offering a competitive pricing model suited for streamlined processes.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M involves higher setup costs, reflecting its advanced features, while Camunda is more cost-effective, offering a competitive pricing model suited for streamlined processes.
Control-M Logo
Appian
4.2 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Appian
4.2 out of 5
Appian offers rapid app development with low-code for efficient business process management. In comparison, Control-M excels in automation with cross-platform support. Each solution caters to distinct needs: Appian enhances productivity, while Control-M excels in complex workflow orchestration for large-scale enterprises.
Download Appian vs. Control-M Report
Appian offers a lower initial setup cost compared to Control-M, which may result in reduced upfront expenses for organizations choosing Appian. Control-M, however, provides a more comprehensive setup with a potentially higher upfront investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Appian offers a lower initial setup cost compared to Control-M, which may result in reduced upfront expenses for organizations choosing Appian. Control-M, however, provides a more comprehensive setup with a potentially higher upfront investment.
Control-M Logo
Pega Platform
4.1 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Pega Platform
4.1 out of 5
Pega Platform excels in case management and no-code capabilities, appealing to large enterprises needing rapid prototyping. In comparison, Control-M shines in scheduling with cross-platform support, making it ideal for complex job automation tasks in organizations requiring extensive third-party integrations.
Download Control-M vs. Pega Platform Report
Pega Platform has a lower setup cost, making it more accessible for startups, while Control-M's setup cost is higher, reflecting its robust enterprise-grade capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
Pega Platform has a lower setup cost, making it more accessible for startups, while Control-M's setup cost is higher, reflecting its robust enterprise-grade capabilities.
Control-M Logo
IBM BPM
3.9 out of 5
Control-M Logo
IBM BPM
3.9 out of 5
Control-M's cross-platform ease and automation make it apt for workload needs. In comparison, IBM BPM offers strong IBM integration, aiding process orchestration. Control-M supports varied deployments, while IBM BPM's flexibility suits large enterprises. Each provides ROI, but Control-M streamlines seamless scheduling.
Download Control-M vs. IBM BPM Report
Control-M has a more streamlined initial setup process, reducing complexity, while IBM BPM involves a higher setup cost, offering more extensive customization options.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a more streamlined initial setup process, reducing complexity, while IBM BPM involves a higher setup cost, offering more extensive customization options.
Control-M Logo
SnapLogic
3.9 out of 5
Control-M Logo
SnapLogic
3.9 out of 5
Control-M offers comprehensive AS400 integration, excelling in automation and cross-platform support for banking processes. In comparison, SnapLogic focuses on low-code data integration with flexibility and rapid prototyping, making it ideal for users seeking ease of use in business application integration.
Download Control-M vs. SnapLogic Report
Control-M involves a high setup cost, making it potentially less accessible for smaller businesses, whereas SnapLogic offers a lower setup cost, providing a more budget-friendly option for organizations seeking integration solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M involves a high setup cost, making it potentially less accessible for smaller businesses, whereas SnapLogic offers a lower setup cost, providing a more budget-friendly option for organizations seeking integration solutions.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
ServiceNow Orchestration
4.1 out of 5
Control-M excels in diverse integrations and automation across platforms, essential for complex environments like AS400. In comparison, ServiceNow Orchestration focuses on IT process automation within the ServiceNow ecosystem. Control-M's robust features justify its cost, while ServiceNow offers ROI for IT operations efficiency.
Download Control-M vs. ServiceNow Orchestration Report
Control-M users report straightforward setup with moderate initial costs, whereas ServiceNow Orchestration is noted for its higher initial expense but potentially broader integration capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M users report straightforward setup with moderate initial costs, whereas ServiceNow Orchestration is noted for its higher initial expense but potentially broader integration capabilities.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
ActiveBatch by Redwood
4.6 out of 5
Control-M offers extensive integration capabilities, ideal for large enterprises willing to invest in comprehensive functionality. In comparison, ActiveBatch by Redwood provides a cost-effective, user-friendly licensing model, appealing to businesses seeking reliable automation with a lower initial investment.
Download ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. Control-M Report
Control-M's setup cost is higher, reflecting its comprehensive capabilities, while ActiveBatch by Redwood offers a more affordable setup, appealing to budget-conscious users.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M's setup cost is higher, reflecting its comprehensive capabilities, while ActiveBatch by Redwood offers a more affordable setup, appealing to budget-conscious users.
Control-M Logo
Temporal
4.3 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Temporal
4.3 out of 5
Control-M offers extensive integration with third-party applications, ideal for complex scheduling. In comparison, Temporal enhances system resilience with distributed transaction management, benefiting developer environments. A tech buyer might choose Control-M for comprehensive features, while Temporal appeals for its cost-effective open-source model.
Download Control-M vs. Temporal Report
Control-M offers a straightforward setup with predictable costs, while Temporal features flexible deployment options.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M offers a straightforward setup with predictable costs, while Temporal features flexible deployment options.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
vCenter Orchestrator
4.2 out of 5
vCenter Orchestrator focuses on ease of integration with VMware infrastructures and performance stability, appealing to those managing complex environments. In comparison, Control-M excels in workflow orchestration and integration for batch processes, attracting organizations needing robust automation and scheduling solutions.
Download Control-M vs. vCenter Orchestrator Report
vCenter Orchestrator has a more economical setup cost than Control-M, which offers more advanced features but is pricier. The distinct cost differences make vCenter appealing for budget-conscious organizations while Control-M targets those needing robust functionality.
View comparison
Pricing
vCenter Orchestrator has a more economical setup cost than Control-M, which offers more advanced features but is pricier. The distinct cost differences make vCenter appealing for budget-conscious organizations while Control-M targets those needing robust functionality.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
OpenText Operations Orchestration
3.9 out of 5
Control-M provides comprehensive workflow management for complex environments, appealing to enterprises needing robust automation. In comparison, OpenText Operations Orchestration excels in adaptability, offering agile deployment and scalable solutions, making it ideal for organizations seeking streamlined, cost-effective process integration and rapid ROI.
Download Control-M vs. OpenText Operations Orchestration Report
Control-M setup costs are highlighted as higher than OpenText Operations Orchestration, which is praised for its affordability.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M setup costs are highlighted as higher than OpenText Operations Orchestration, which is praised for its affordability.
Control-M Logo
BizTalk Server
3.7 out of 5
Control-M Logo
BizTalk Server
3.7 out of 5
BizTalk Server excels in robust integration across diverse protocols, making it ideal for handling complex business scenarios. In comparison, Control-M offers advanced batch scheduling with scalability and automation. BizTalk Server aligns with Microsoft ecosystems, while Control-M provides streamlined deployment and substantial ROI despite higher initial costs.
Download BizTalk Server vs. Control-M Report
BizTalk Server has a lower setup cost compared to Control-M, making it more accessible for budget-conscious businesses, whereas Control-M, with its higher setup cost, offers advanced features tailored for complex enterprise environments.
View comparison
Pricing
BizTalk Server has a lower setup cost compared to Control-M, making it more accessible for budget-conscious businesses, whereas Control-M, with its higher setup cost, offers advanced features tailored for complex enterprise environments.
Control-M Logo
Rundeck
1 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Rundeck
1 out of 5
Control-M excels in comprehensive workflow automation and enterprise-level deployment, providing significant ROI for large-scale environments. In comparison, Rundeck offers flexible integrations and an open-source model, appealing to cost-conscious organizations prioritizing agility and strong community support with its intuitive job orchestration.
Control-M's setup cost can be higher but often accompanies robust features, while Rundeck offers a lower initial cost, appealing for budget-conscious operations.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M's setup cost can be higher but often accompanies robust features, while Rundeck offers a lower initial cost, appealing for budget-conscious operations.
Control-M Logo
Control-M Logo
Oracle Process Cloud Service
5.0 out of 5
Control-M offers robust scheduling and batch management for enterprises, while Oracle Process Cloud Service excels with cloud integration. In comparison, Oracle’s deployment simplicity appeals to quick-integrating businesses, whereas Control-M’s customization suits firms needing tailored environments for their complex operations.
Control-M has a higher setup cost compared to Oracle Process Cloud Service, making it more suitable for larger budgets. Conversely, Oracle Process Cloud Service is more cost-effective for businesses with limited initial investment capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a higher setup cost compared to Oracle Process Cloud Service, making it more suitable for larger budgets. Conversely, Oracle Process Cloud Service is more cost-effective for businesses with limited initial investment capabilities.
Control-M Logo
Azure Automation
4.0 out of 5
Control-M Logo
Azure Automation
4.0 out of 5
Control-M excels in job scheduling and batch processing, ideal for complex environments. In comparison, Azure Automation integrates with Azure services, offering scalability and cloud-native solutions. Tech buyers might choose Control-M for enterprise needs, while Azure Automation attracts those integrating into Microsoft's cloud.
Control-M has a higher setup cost, whereas Azure Automation offers a more economical setup expense, highlighting significant pricing differences between the two.
View comparison
Pricing
Control-M has a higher setup cost, whereas Azure Automation offers a more economical setup expense, highlighting significant pricing differences between the two.

Related categories

Process Automation
Managed File Transfer (MFT)
Workload Automation