Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer vs Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

BMC Control-M Managed File ...
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
8th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Sterling Commerce Connect:D...
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Managed File Transfer (MFT) category, the mindshare of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is 3.8%, down from 4.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct is 8.4%, up from 8.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Managed File Transfer (MFT)
 

Featured Reviews

SirajShaik - PeerSpot reviewer
Improve operational efficiency through workflow orchestration
Its stability and the feature list are rich compared to other tools in the market. I have experienced a thirty percent reduction in operational time for developers, increasing efficiency in workflow orchestration design. The UI is great, with a minimal learning curve and caters to both click-and-monitor users and those who want to code.
Sumit Mundik - PeerSpot reviewer
Has good file transfer speed, but licensing cost is too high
The initial setup of the solution is not straightforward because it's not GUI-based. If you are installing the solution on a UNIX server, you should have a basic understanding of UNIX. You should know how to go from one directory to another, what the config files are, how to edit those files, and how to get the backup of those files. You need a little technical knowledge for it. The developers working on the solution are very costly for the organization. Also, the complexity of having this kind of setup is very difficult. This solution is only used by giant financial companies like BNY Mellon, Barclays, and JPMorgan Chase. They cannot replace the solution because they have several files transferred internally using it. It is very difficult and cost-consuming for them to change, migrate, or upgrade their system. That's the reason they are not able to do it very easily.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"There's another feature called Workload Archiving, where the data for all the jobs can be stored for however many days that we want, which is very useful for any historical analytics."
"The most valuable thing is that it works as advertised. We don't take advantage of some of the features like we should because that's not our primary role and responsibility in the environment that we manage. We only want to make sure that a file gets to where it was supposed to go, or we pull in a file and it comes to us correctly."
"The reporting and the analytics that I can generate out of my schedules are valuable."
"The product works very well with the modules. If you have MFT, Managed File Transfer, or the old AFT, you can link that to processing jobs."
"It has a nice dashboard for loading up the file transfers, so it's easy to follow the success or failure rates of the operations."
"What I like best about BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is that it makes transfers more secure and faster. It has a recovery feature during failed file transfers."
"The scalability of this solution is very good. The current solution is used wide spread in my company, but I don't have any plans to expand."
"The most valuable feature is the automation process."
"Offers secure file transfers with a fast and efficient protocol for very large files."
"The Security Plus feature of this solution is excellent, and allows you to send encrypted files very securely to remote destinations."
"Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct is a solution that is on the market for a very long time. There is an integrator that has been developed and evolves every year. On the roadmap, there is always a new integration. For example, it's one of the solutions in the market that out of the box can handle EBICS protocol. The file processing is done very well. By default, there are a lot of configurations that can be customized."
"Connect Direct offers Check Point functionality to ensure data integrity during transfers."
"The product has been very stable."
"Automation is the most valuable feature."
"The solution's file transfer speed is quite high."
"Connect Direct offers Check Point functionality to ensure data integrity during transfers."
 

Cons

"Scalability is something that needs to be improved."
"Its price could be better."
"The solution should improve the out-of-the box conversion tool for migrations so the percentage result isn't so low."
"The only improvement I would suggest is the license pricing should be a little reduced. Apart from that, I don't see anything else as a major concern with the tool right now."
"The structure between the Control-M/Server and Control-M/Agent could possibly be improved."
"There are eight different kinds of dashboards in Workflow Insights, but there could be more because there is third party software that provides more dashboard styles."
"Its current functionalities can be upgraded."
"Their support can be improved. I would like them to provide support in Spanish and have more knowledge."
"The resources required for this tool are costly and not easily available in the market."
"The initial setup could be simpler and better."
"Technical support is the number one concern."
"Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct could improve by adding some of the functionality that some other vendors have. For example, GoAnywhere has call agents, which are small clients that can be installed on the endpoints and can be handled by the central point on the server. If I want to do this with the IBM solution, I have to sell a lot of account addresses. The price could be unprofitable for the customer. There is some small functionality that could be implemented and could be easily done to improve this solution."
"Sometimes we face issues and can't figure out the cause of failures."
"This solution cannot be deployed on a root_squash NFS, which limits superuser privileges."
"User interface is not user friendly."
"I do not have any notes for improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It was a little bit pricey. They were proud of the product. A particular module was not free. However, BMC was able to negotiate that particular module into our whole contract itself without having to negotiate an individual price for that module. All that was included in a one-time negotiation, and we've signed a five-year contract on that."
"I rate the solution's price a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is low or really affordable, and ten is high or really expensive. It is a really expensive tool."
"It is an expensive solution."
"This solution is very expensive compared to others in the market. Previously it was the only solution in our country to offer this kind of functionality. However, technology has caught up and many competitors offer the same at a lower price."
"The licensing is a bit more expensive than other tools, so if a client is focused on the cost, that would be something to consider. The licensing should be cheaper."
"I switched to this solution within the last year. I switched from the servers payment package to the job payment package, and it is very expensive."
"BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has reasonable pricing. What you pay for is the task or job, and as it's a module, it's complimentary, so you save about twenty percent of the job cost."
"BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is expensive."
"The solution's licensing cost is too high."
"Annual licensing fee."
"The price and licensing of Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions are best for your needs.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
30%
Computer Software Company
9%
Insurance Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
42%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer?
It is a highly scalable solution...I rate the product's initial setup a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer?
Negotiate based on task and ask for a better price where non prod tasks could be charged a lower price.
What needs improvement with BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer?
There is not much room for improvement. It already has a GUI and even a mobile app, although I don't use it. It is adequate for most scheduling needs. Offering it as open source for free would be g...
What needs improvement with Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct?
I do not find anything that needs improvement in Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct as a product. I have been supporting this solution, and it serves billions of customers well. Capgemini, in collabo...
What is your primary use case for Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct?
The primary use case of Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct is to transmit data. It offers two modes of transfers: SFTP, which is straightforward, and FTPS, which provides secure file transfer. A sign...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

British Sky Broadcasting
HZMO, Bank of Communications
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer vs. Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.