Control-M Reviews

Overall, we have a great visual of all of our key business processes, and it gives us a secure way of transferring everything in and out of the business so that if anything were to be intercepted, it would be secure and not compromised.

We transfer financial files between Google cloud. We use it for the I series. We have a lot of automated jobs, around 3,000 jobs per day, that we load that range between just regular commands for our planning allocations, finance, or data warehouse along with Google cloud. We're starting to implement a lot of that, but a lot of it has been automated and it allows us to process everything in a timely manner.

We are in the process of implementing the managed file transfer which gives us the dashboard, but we are still fine-tuning that. Overall, it does give us a great picture and helps everything. If there's something delayed, it gives us the opportunity to send out a notification to a team to say that their process is delayed. We get tickets created and have everything sorted in a timely manner.

We use Control-M's web. It makes it very easy for us to show them what they need to see and what they don't need to see. They mainly can just view the tasks that they have, but it's pretty divvied up permission-wise.

Control-M integrates file transfers within our application workflows. It has made everything a lot quicker. We've been able to get files transferred to vendors and we've been able to retrieve files from vendors rapidly and securely.

It also streamlines our data and analytics project. Mainly developers will create either different types of processes that we will implement within Control-M to make it automated and that definitely, I would imagine, helps streamline and format certain projects and reports that we send out to executives that helps out a lot. I don't know the exact extent of it, but I would imagine that it has helped our business service delivery. 

It has helped to achieve faster issue resolution. With the shouts and notifications that we get, we're able to create tickets as soon as a problem surfaces. So as soon as we do get a job failure, we get an email notification that prompts us to create a ticket, page out the team, and get it resolved in a matter of our terms of our SLA.

The most valuable features are the Advanced File Transfer and the managed file transfer. They make transferring files securely seamless. It's very easy to set up, get deployed, and have it transferred to and from vendors. As long as we can get our firewall rules implemented at a decent time, it's very easy and seamless to get important files transferred in a secure manner.

Control-M has automated critical processes. We run a lot of our backups through Control-M, daily sales reporting, and warehouse initiatives with shipping and planning. There are a bunch of finance processes that go through here that are time-critical. It's made everything more streamlined and secure and it comes through much quicker than doing it manually.

We have had a few small bugs with the configuration of the different types of jobs where it is the order of operations if it's doing a statement, we've noticed that if you try and do a little bit of both, it may cause one of them not to work. 

We've also had a few database bugs within our organization. I think we are migrating to OpenJDK rather than just regular Java and that has since shown some issues with our Control-M instance, timing out and causing our jobs to stop running. We are still working with BMC to fine-tune that and get that resolved.

I believe the file transfer process does everything that it needs to do. I don't believe that there's anything that would need to be changed there with all the features that it has, it's pretty robust. But overall I don't really see many changes that we would need.

I have been using Control-M for three to four years. 

Other than the database connections that we've had and as of, I believe when we upgraded or moved away from Java using OpenJDK, it's been hit or miss. I know that we've had a few instances where our jobs just stopped processing, but we're not sure if that's related to the application itself or if that's something in our environment, but overall I am personally okay with the way that it runs.

We run it on windows as well as Linux, and we are still trying to work on getting it to our DR site. But, I believe we are able to process quite a bit through there.

We use it for our I series AS 400. We also use it for Google Cloud, Cognos, ADP, many custom applications that we run as well, but we do a lot of I series.

I do not plan to expand it to other applications in the future.

My department consists of eight people, and we are mainly data center analysts. I'm their manager. We also have developers with a select few developers that are able to get in and view it, but they cannot actually create anything. They can just view and see what is running.

Between five to 10 users are responsible for the day-to-day administration of Control-M.

I've never used Control-M before, prior to being here and all I had to use were the help guides from the web, as well as the user interface that we have. The help administration guide has been the only way that we are able to get questions resolved and to go through support.

Their support is hit or miss. We have had successful sessions with them. And then we have other ones where there are fingers being pointed and it doesn't really solve anything. We have a rep that my manager goes through, but we seem to usually get issues resolved in a timely manner.

We have seen ROI. We were able to have fewer people manually running tasks. We're able to put them right into here and we're able to scale and move a lot of file transfers through here.

It is a little bit expensive. I believe that however we are set up, it might be per job that we load or the highest number of jobs that are loaded monthly and I believe it is quite expensive.

My advice would be to try and utilize as many features as you can. Don't get overly creative with things because that can just confuse other people. If there are other users getting in there, you want to definitely have a standard workflow on how jobs should be created, organized, and make sure that you keep track of what's being changed so that if something were to fail it's easily trackable.

It's a very robust application and there is a lot that can be sent to it and sent out of it and you do not want it to get into the wrong hands because you can do quite a bit with it.

I would rate Control-M an eight out of ten. 

We use this solution for automating workloads across traditional data centers, the cloud, SaaS offerings, and various other Enterprise software packages.

It is allowing developers and product owners to create complex workflows that may encompass several different products or technologies and have it all visible, monitored, and managed from one place.

The Single pane of glass view has helped us to see the big picture.

The auditing and archiving capabilities have helped us maintain compliance and provide for a single place to look for errors, check historical runs, etc.

We have increased efficiency by reducing the number of people needed to watch and react to processing.

The simplified integrations and scheduling across various products was a big win to reduce silos.

The Automation API has opened up a world of possibilities for us, including the ability to create workflows on-demand using traditional DevOps tools.

The most valuable feature is the Automation API - Jobs as Code. This is the future of workload automation. It brings Control-M into the DevOps sphere, and they are focusing a lot of effort with monthly releases of this product.

The Web interface is coming along but still has some missing pieces. Today, you must still rely on the full GUI client to do everything you need. The next major release needs to focus on the lightweight web client.

I'd also like to see more out of the box support for Docker, etc.

We have been using this solution for more than sixteen years.

This solution is highly stable with a good customer support team.

This solution is highly scalable.  We can run one job or a million jobs, with ease. We've never had an issue.

Technical support for this solution is top-notch. Many of the folks that I email have been there for years! That says a lot.

Prior to using this product, we used homemade solutions and we outgrew them.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward, but for new users, I would recommend engaging a third party to help you set up and learn the ropes.

We used a vendor team to assist with the deployment.

Over the years we've saved countless man YEARS. We have also avoided having to buy additional products for scheduling and integration. The list really does go on and on.

Pricing can be steep, but you get what you pay for. If you are just concerned about cost, you are going to miss the big picture because Control-M has features that are light years ahead of the competition. Don't save a nickel to spend $20.

Before choosing this product we looked at Computer Associates (CA Technologies) and Tivoli.

Control-M is light years ahead of any competitor we have looked at.

You can try it without buying it. I would suggest checking out the workbench at: https://jobsascode.io

This is a free version of the Control-M package that is perfect to take for a spin.

We use it for our job automation, running jobs daily, monthly, and annually. So, it is all automation.

We use another product, which is a BMC competitor, and we were able to integrate the two product. Therefore, if a job fails, it is automatically contacting the development team who is in charge of that job.

Automation is its most valuable feature. It comes down to if you schedule a job, then it runs on its own. You don't need to have an operator manually start a script, start a mainframe job, etc.

I love the usability. It works. 

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.

The technical support is great. They get it back to you right away. As soon as you open up a ticket, they are on it. I am happy with them.

We had a BMC competing product, then we integrated it with Control-M.

The initial setup was complex, because I wasn't used to it.

We used a consultant for the deployment. We had a great experience with them.

We are not yet using the solution's application workflow orchestration.

We are not using it for business modernization initiatives yet. 

We don't use any other BMC products.

We're not fully entrenched in Control-M yet.

Our primary use case for Control-M is to order the jobs we have, like database entries and processes that need to be run in Unix or any other environment. With Control-M, we can run a set of flows at a specific time, like maybe on the fourth of every month or every second Sunday of the month.

The Control-M feature I find the most valuable is the ability to configure a lot compared to a contract. 

An issue we have run into in our lower environments is that Control-M can log you out frequently. This happens when you have a lot of applications running. Maybe it's just a configuration issue, but this is a pain point that would be good to look into. 

I have been using Control-M for a couple of years now. 

Control-M is a stable and reliable solution. 

I have not seen any issues with Control-M in our production environment. However, in the lower environment, we can see frequent log-outs. That could be an issue with how much they have allocated. 

In our organization, the development team uses it, as does the bank team. They monitor it. If a job fails, for example, Control-M sends out a notification and the team can take a look at what happened in the logs. They can do it on the fly instead of dealing with the issue later on. 

As soon as you have an issue, a ticket is created and the tech support is quite responsive. 

I did not set up Control-M in my organization, but the setup is straightforward. You just log in with your credentials and everything is already setup for you. You can access things in line with whatever authorization you have. 

I would recommend this solution because of the ease of use. To work with it, you do need to understand it and know how to configure it. But, once you do, you can take advantage of many features that are helpful. 

We use this solution for enterprise workload automation in the financial industry. We schedule and monitor hundreds of business-critical processes.

We also leverage the Managed File Transfer capabilities of Control-M to handle our file transfers securely & efficiently. Most of our tasks also deal with databases, and Control-M's purpose-built module for the databases comes in very handy when handling database components. It adds value with its capability to execute tasks natively and bring more information to the output.

The BIM feature is used to monitor the important set of jobs as a service and to proactively alert operations when it sees that some jobs in the critical path are failed or delayed. This helps a lot in maintaining our SLAs efficiently.

Control-M, with its huge integration capabilities, brought most of our scheduling activities under one roof. This adds to ease of use and support. To top that, the visibility it adds to the otherwise hidden information is very useful. In fact, invaluable.

Although we do not use tens of additional plugins available, we can see how they can be valuable to other companies.

BMC has now started concentrating more on APIs, which is a welcome move. This enables us to develop 'job as code'. This supports our efforts to adapt to a Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery model. We hope that they make it one hundred percent compatible as early as possible.

Integration capabilities, plugins, support communities, visibility, MFT, Reports, APIs. As mentioned earlier, all these features mean that we don't need to use multiple solutions to do the task. It also makes things a lot easier that way.

MFT changed the way we manage our file transfers. On top of that, all of it is directly visible in the same GUI. All the statistics can be viewed at the click of a button. Although a bit flaky sometimes, it is very helpful.

Experts in the communities need a special mention here. There's a huge number of people who spend their valuable time helping each other, solving others problems. Although the actual BMC support can be slow in response sometimes, the expertise & the helpful nature of people in the BMC Community for Control-M more than make up for it.

MFT needs some more polishing. We ran into problems a few times & struggled to get them sorted in time. But, BMC gave their full support to us at such times.

APIs are not there one hundred percent yet, but BMC just adopted a monthly release mechanism for APIs. I can see that they are on it full time.

Inbuilt integration with Connect Direct could be helpful. A developer sandbox could be very helpful to try out new features or experience them.

Application Integrator can be helpful, although I don't see many templates being built by BMC experts. The hub that is available is mostly user-dependent.

It's stable ninety-nine percent of the time. Even the other one percent could be because of the funky underlying infrastructure/network setup.

Our job footprint is very low, so we never faced any scalability issues. From the documentation, it is my understanding that virtually, there is no limit to its scalability.

It can be slow at times, but you eventually come to an understanding that as long as you provide all of the information they 'might' need as early as possible, there are better chances that you get your answers 'sooner'.

I had used Cron scheduler for a short time, but it can be considered almost zero experience. My understanding is that BMC Control-M is years ahead in terms of usability & visibility.

The initial setup of this solution is very straight forward. BMCs AMIGO program is there to walk you through the process.

It gets a bit technical when you need to setup MFTs, but at the same time, it's not rocket science either.

We performed the deployment in-house with help from BMCs AMIGO program.

Pricing is a tricky area that I don't have much experience in. I can see it getting even trickier with more companies moving to a cloud-based infrastructure.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this solution.

I like this solution, and my advice is to go for it :)

We do scheduling of tasks and jobs in Control-M.

The company has had the product for over 25 years.

The opportunity to automate work so you have an audit trail, especially with governmental requirements in a regulated industry, such as the airline industry. It's really important that we have that audit trail.

Because it's a tool which allows us to do scheduled work, it allows for notifications when jobs aren't running within that scheduled time frame. This improves the opportunity to meet SLAs.

We have all sorts of things which run through it, both on distributed and mainframe platforms. They all seem to run quite successfully. We're looking to add some additional work off of distributed platforms that will run with Oracle types of processing. But, we have a lot of work to come to the tool that we're not using it for yet.

It creates an audit trail for jobs that we run off of it.

With opportunity to run things through a repository, such as a scheduler, you have a better opportunity to ensure the information is where it needs to be when it needs to be there.

The company has been working with BMC on the MFT. There are still some things about MFT which don't work the way that we want with our needs. So, we would like to see that improved.

While the solution has affected the collaboration between our development and operations within our company, there is a need and opportunity to further that relationship with the use of this tool, so the enterprise uses it on all platforms. We will get there, but we are just not there yet.

For our shop, the tool is 99.9 percent reliable. We have very few instances of disruption with the tool.

We don't have any complaints about the usability. We like what it does. There are no issues with usability of the tool.

As we increase the number of tasks or jobs on the system, there are concerns about cost.

We previously used CA products.

We have seen ROI. Our in-house developed tool has been able to use the Control-M platform, making it easier for us to manage and monitor our file delivery processes.

Control-M saves us time.

Because we have been so pleased with this product, I would encourage others to look into this product with a view on what are their needs. Ask the right questions of either their sales rep or technical person from BMC to understand how this tool would work successfully for them, because it's been so successful for us.

Because we've had it for so long, and it's been such a stable product, some of our folks on the distributed side of things need to learn how to use Control-M effectively in regards to output when tasks or jobs fail. They need to give us smarter outputs, so we can resolve things more quickly.

Promotions between environments, as well as local, mass update, versioning, and self-service.

It is much easier to move and copy schedules. Versioning allows for quick restoration when an error is found.

It can definitely expand promotions, so that a single job can be moved. Currently you can only promote a job by promoting the entire table. In our environment we have very similar jobs in a flow but some are different so if i want to move just one of those jobs to all the other Control-M servers i would not be able to because it would overlay the entire folder. I want to be able to copy/move just a single job to prevent the overlay.

I have been using Control-M for 18 years.

I have not had any issues with deployment in any of the versions.

I can honestly say, I only had a stability issue once. Other than that one time, Control-M has been a very stable application.

No scalability issues at all. When we grew, we upgraded the server and it was back to business as usual.

I would give customer service a rating of 8/10.

I would give technical support a rating of 8/10.

We used another solution. Our company was looking to standardize across the enterprise.

The setup was straightforward.

We had a single contractor and our in-house team. She was very knowledgeable of the product.

The main use is for job scheduling. We are using Control-M to manage and schedule various jobs within our organization.

We are more comfortable with Control-M since we have people who know this tool well. It integrates seamlessly with other tools within our ecosystem.

The best aspects of the solution are the ecosystem and integration part. This makes Control-M particularly valuable for us.

Control-M could benefit from incorporating AI features for better job scheduling. For example, if a job fails, the system could automatically manage related failures and take remedial actions without manual intervention. This would make it more advanced.

I have been using Control-M in my current organization for the last six months.

We did not face any stability issues with Control-M. It has been very stable for our needs.

Scalability is very subjective to use cases. For our minimalistic use cases, Control-M is quite scalable. However, for larger use cases, such as those in banking where there are thousands of jobs, scaling might be different.

Customer support from BMC is good but not excellent. We always expect more from support, so I would rate it between three to nine on a scale of one to ten.

Positive

Before Control-M, there might have been an IBM scheduling tool in use. I am unsure why the switch happened as I have only seen Control-M being used since I joined.

The initial setup was straightforward. It did not require much effort as we had knowledgeable people in the team.

One person is generally enough for the installation and configuration parts. It typically takes around one day to complete the installation.

We found Control-M to be one of the best solutions available. I would recommend incorporating AI features for future improvements.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.