Control-M Reviews

There are no specific features that I could say are more valuable than others. The whole product is valuable to us.

• Ninety percent or more of the batch processing is now centralized into a single scheduling platform. This helps the support teams so that they only need to go to one group for scheduling and monitoring the batch processing
• The operations support staff only has one platform where they can monitor almost all of our batch processing.

There aren’t any improvements that I’ve come across with the most recent release. If I had to note one improvement, it would be that jobs already in the system for a given day could be updated en masse. This could be the same on the database where the job definitions reside.

I have used the product for sixteen years.

I did not encounter any stability issues.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.

The level of support from BMC has been very good.

We already evaluated CA’s offering at the time because we were already using CA-7 on the mainframe.

Other than creating the jobs in Control-M once it was set up, I was not involved.

It is task based pricing. It is based on the number of jobs brought into the system daily and any that remain in the system from prior days.

For example, if you have 2000 new jobs that come in in for a new day, and you still have 500 left from previous days, you will need to have 2500 task licenses to cover them. This is the case, even if those 500 jobs are daily jobs that came in during the prior day and have not yet been completed.

We use BMC’s Control-M software for our open systems and SAP batch processing. We will be looking at converting the batch we are running via the solution to the same.

I’ve never used the mainframe version of Control-M before, so I don’t have any opinions about it.

Job processing and flows are great. Report functionality on all batch processes using Crystal Reports is excellent. The escalation process on jobs is awesome and that goes for the various modules and their functionality.

We have minimum downtime now. We have a bigger online window for our users to work. We now have a central dashboard to monitor the entire companies processes that is running.

V9 has now come out with some new features; it has just been launched, so I will have to review and see what's covered in the new release.

I have been using it for four years.

The support from the vendor is superb.

I have not encountered any stability issues. We run on a Unix platform, so no issues. On Windows, we had issues using MySQL instead of Postgres as recommended by the vendor.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

We receive excellent support from our service provider.

Technical support is excellent.

We previously used the IBM TWS solution. Control-M has much more functionality.

Setup was easy and there is a migration tool available for most platforms.

Pricing would be best to take the full suite and go with CPU licencing instead of TAS licencing.

Before choosing this product, we only evaluated Control-M.

It is the best in the market.

We use it to control job submission.

This product works with all the platforms that we use today. We're able to centralize our managing of job flows for all our platforms. That's how it really helps us.

It has also improved our SLAs.

In addition, it has definitely helped development. Now we have multiple developers running their jobs and it gives them a lot of flexibility.

The most valuable features are 

• the managing of file transfers
• the product keeping up with technology.

It's also very user-friendly and easy to manage job flow.

I would like to see the ease of upgrades improved, although they may have addressed that. We're still at an early version, but we plan to get to the latest and greatest very soon, where we can take advantage of easy upgrades.

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.

It's very stable. It's continuously running - we're a 24/7 shop. The only problem that may come up is applying it to new servers with new technologies. There can be little startup problems, but they're usually ironed out. Overall, the stability of the product is awesome.

It's very scalable. The product does technically work with any other hardware, using its agents, so it's very scalable.

Technical support is very good. They're very helpful. The only downside is getting their attention and fixing a problem in a timely fashion. But a lot of it is development. If it comes to an urgent problem, they usually respond fairly quickly. And I must say, there really haven't been that many urgent problems.

Upgrades are pretty straightforward. There's not really that much mystery to them.

We did use a consultant when we went to a new release from a very old release. But going forward, we're doing our own upgrades. Our experience with the consultant was very good. I forget which consultant we used, it was about eight years ago, but they were very good. They handled everything.

My advice would be to go ahead with Control-M. Get a lot of input from their technicians. Work with them. They're very good, and very helpful.

I've learned a lot because I came from the mainframe area, personally, where now I'm working with all this Windows and agent technology I never knew before.

We do not have Managed File Transfer yet, but we do want to get to it. We like what it offers, above advanced file transfer. We're looking forward to implementing that.

I'm going to give it an eight, only because I don't have anything else to compare it with.

With version 9, there is out-of-the-box automatic failover (high availability), as well as the new agent deployment tool.

Automatic failover allows for active-passive high availability. If the Control-M Application were to fail on one server, it would automatically start up and continue processing on the backup (failover) server.

The agent deployment tool allows for upgrading or patching agents directly from the configuration manager (CCM) instead of logging into each agent one by one. A big time saver.

N/A – We are a consulting company that implements this application for clients.

I would like to see the Mainframe Control-M IN/OUT Condition feature of Relative ODAT added to the Distributed Control-M.

I have used it since 1996.

I have only encountered stability issues with the base installation; their product development team supplies fix packs for bugs.

I have not encountered any scalability issues; the product is scalable.

Technical support is 10 out of 10; support is available around the clock, 24/7.

N/A – We replace different solutions for clients usually due to high costs, lack of support or functionality of the legacy product.

Initial setup is quite easy; a wizard-based installation process.

I am on the technical services side and am not involved in pricing.

N/A – We only work with Control-M.

Do a proof of concept to see if it meets your needs.

Many companies are using Control-M in Mexico, two main companies from the retail sector have been using Control-M for around 15 years for all the administration of their processes. 

It has been helpful in reducing costs and resources.

Its compatibility with the new technologies and platforms, like the Google Cloud or Amazon, is the most valuable. Its console allows us to view the duration and execution of a process. It is also very easy to use and easy to implement.

Some companies have found Control-M a very costly solution, and they think it’s not worth the investment. My recommendation is that they can evaluate some points like Control-M is a leader in EMA Analysis (similar to Gartner Studio), and see the potential of Control-M and the immediate benefits that it can have to the Business. It’s my understanding that BMC will be releasing Control-M Saas, which will have a new commercial schema, more accessible than the On-Premise schema.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. All our clients are big companies.

Their technical support is very good. We need to create tickets, and their response time is good.

Its implementation is pretty fast and easy. The duration depends on the size of the infrastructure. It could be implemented between one to three months.

I would recommend this solution. It has good stability and integration capabilities. It is also easy to use and easy to implement.

I would rate Control-M a ten out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is to keep track of our help desk tickets.

The solution helps us to make sure that help desk tickets don't go unnoticed.

I find it very helpful to be able to keep track of all our help desk tickets.

We don't use the program that much, so it is stable enough for us.

I don't think the solution is very scalable. The version we're currently using is discontinued and I haven't upgraded yet. We don't plan to upgrade soon, because we're working on our other back-office software that's more for our business.

The technical support is okay, because it's an end of life product.

The biggest reason for upgrading what we currently have, is the workforce becoming more mobile and we need to give users easier access to submit help desk tickets. That is why we are looking for a solution that can offer this feature.

We used a consultant for the deployment and the initial setup was pretty straightforward and easy.

We haven't seen a ROI yet.

Licensing costs are around $3000 a year. 

My rating for this solution is five out of ten. It's not bad, but it's not good either. There's a lot of room for improvement and I think it can be more user-friendly. In the next version I would like to see something with integrated mobile device management so that I can keep track of software and devices, having it all in one software for our help desk. I think it would be very useful.

Our primary use cases for Control-M are scheduling, jobs, monitoring, and acting on job scheduling.

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. That's the most valuable thing. 

Control-M is a mature tool with many features. It's pretty stable and very easy to learn. You can become an expert in it within a short time.

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. Opening up to more open source tools and switching the connectivity to additional tools would also be improvements. 

Most of the tools that are available with Control-M are antiquated. The self-service is currently not as function-rich as competitors. Control-M is not the best.

It is stable.

Control-M is very scalable.

Comtrol-M technical support is done through a local agent. We are in Israel, so the agent in Israel is the one giving it. It's adequate, not perfect. It's okay.

Previously we used some collection of ad hoc tools. It was a consolidated solution, i.e. a single solution that was used across the board.

The setup of Control-M is okay. It was done before my time by the vendor or a vendor agent. A third party authorized by the company itself helped with our implementation.

This is the first time for us implementing the solutions using Control-M.

We use Control-M with two administrators on average, sometimes three. With self-service, it's about 15 people who use the self-service option of it for end users, if not more.

I would like to suggest that Control-M implement a more modern way of using new tools. They should look at what they implement to determine if it is a legacy type or a batch type, then it would work better.

If they intend on moving to more modernized tools, then this approach might not be best for them. Control-M is really good for legacy, corporate enterprise but less optimal for modern, open source environments.

Overall, the main great improvements needed in Control-M is for better self-service. Give it more functionality for this self-service. The tool itself needs better out of the box connectivity to additional standard market tools.

I would rate Control-M at a seven or eight out of ten because it fits legacy stuff but once you're stepping into modern environments then you find yourself struggling. Control-M is a workhorse, but it's not 100% perfect.

Workload Manager.

Using it to moving large amounts of data.

Scalability.

12 years.

No issues with stability.

Yes, it is not currently suited well for the Cloud.

10 out of 10.

Very simple to install.