No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Control-M vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 13, 2026

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

Control-M
Ranking in Process Automation
2nd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
237
Ranking in other categories
Managed File Transfer (MFT) (2nd), Workload Automation (1st), AI IT Support (2nd)
Microsoft System Center Orc...
Ranking in Process Automation
34th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of Control-M is 3.2%, down from 4.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft System Center Orchestrator is 1.2%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Control-M3.2%
Microsoft System Center Orchestrator1.2%
Other95.6%
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

RP
Batch Admin at NBC Universal
Brings data together from multiple platforms and optimizes cross-environment orchestration
The features of Control-M that I like the most include the ability to easily integrate or bring in different platforms into Control-M. For instance, AWS, mainframe, TWS, and something that's running on Autosys can all be brought into Control-M, converted to how Control-M runs it, and then the batch can be executed. This centralizes various applications in Control-M, which doesn't just have to handle batch processes, but also other tasks like reporting on required data. I find this functionality very useful and the setup is impressive, with more advancements yet to come. With Control-M, my company has achieved several measurable improvements since I started. The metrics indicate that the number of failures has dropped, and we have addressed the issue of excessive false alerts that I encountered when I joined. Previously, we received an overwhelming number of alerts daily, but now we manage to maintain that at a normalized level, perhaps around five to fifteen alerts, depending on running core batches and their setup.
Dan Campeanu - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Engineer at ProVision
Automates tasks and manages multiple servers from a central location
The initial setup was quite complex. It required careful preparation of installation steps, as many tasks were not automated as expected. Special attention was needed to prepare groups, users, and permissions at each step to ensure a smooth setup process. Please do so accurately to avoid having to start over. Challenges encountered during deployment included issues with installation and configuration and difficulties detecting machines and executing tasks as expected. Some solutions were found through trial and error during installation, while others were discovered through recommendations from other users. Despite these challenges, the deployment and rollout of Orchestrator took approximately one and a half months to ensure proper functionality.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Control-M processes about 10,000 jobs starting every day in our production environment, and adding new jobs is very simple."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"What I like the most about Control-M is that it is very reliable and works well for scheduling our jobs and even monitoring."
"Control-M has a huge number of features and utilities that assist users in monitoring their schedules, and developers to build schedules that interface with many technologies."
"The feature we use most in Control-M is related to the file transfer module. It is quite advanced compared to the other tools like Automate, etc. The new version which has come of same MFT has a lot of advanced features which makes it very easy to work with. There is less need for written programs and more GUI-based stuff."
"Self Service for repeatable, low impact workload automation processes."
"Control-M helps me build, schedule, manage, and monitor my production workflows effectively, and this capability is important for my data operations and DevOps work."
"Control-M is a bit faster compared to other solutions. The job and coding are easier."
"Automation is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"It can manage multiple servers and workstations from a single location."
 

Cons

"Offering it as open source for free would be great, however, that's unlikely."
"Reporting in Control-M could use improvement."
"Control-M is a very nice product that is practical, but it is challenging to understand how certain features work."
"The history module only contains a maximum of 10 days, but we would like to have access to more. For example, it would be helpful to have 30 days or two months of history available."
"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."
"Control-M SaaS is very expensive."
"The stability could be improved. I ran into an issue with a recent Control-M patch. The environment would become unstable if security ports were scanned. This is an area they need to improve on, but ultimately it's a relatively small improvement."
"Finding documentation on the website can be a bit confusing."
"I find the Orchestrator UI to be problematic."
"The product's management aspect needs enhancement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Cost-wise, it is good."
"The cost is basically $100 a job, give or take."
"It is not bad. The company can afford it, and it pays for itself. We have those jobs running automatically."
"Licensing costs are around $3000 a year."
"This is now from my previous years as support for banks and big companies. If it's not enterprise scale, I find that it's too expensive for smaller companies. You really have to be quite big and need to have a dedicated support staff to run it, then you'll be fine. What we've seen at smaller companies, it's too expensive because they want to automate everything. Now, stuff that can literally run once a day for the rest of their lives is costing them $3 a job a day. It becomes too expensive, eventually. They are not seeing the return on investment because it's not business critical. Nobody is going to die or they're going to lose money if that job didn't run exactly at 11 minutes past 4:00. It's definitely for bigger enterprise companies, especially banks or healthcare providers. We have had an instance where Control-M was unavailable due to external factors for 20 minutes and there was a loss of almost a million euros because the solution involved logistics."
"Pricing can be steep, but you get what you pay for."
"Apart from the standard license, if we avail any additional features, there's an extra cost. For example, Workload Archiving is an additional feature from the standard product, so we pay extra for that."
"In our environment, pricing depends on the total number of maximum jobs that can run, which is fine. Therefore, if the number of jobs increases, then the licensing fees will increase."
"I give the cost of the solution a five out of ten."
"We obtained a license that bundled Windows Server with System Center at no additional cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business44
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise194
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Control-M compare with AutoSys Workload Automation?
Control-M acts as a single, centralized interface for monitoring and managing all batch processes, which is helpful because nothing gets left unattended since it is all visible in one place, and th...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Control-M?
Control-M sits at the premium end of workload automation pricing — that is no secret, and I will not pretend otherwise. My position after decades of using it: the enterprise value justifies the pre...
What needs improvement with Control-M?
My main improvement point after decades with the product is not a feature — it is the path to mastery. Basic administration of Control-M is fairly accessible: a new person can define and monitor jo...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Control M, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer, BMC Australia CTM
MS System Center Orchestrator
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

The Bank of East Asia, LINE Bank Taiwan, Coop, Air Europa, Carrefour, Itau Unibanco, Snam, Embraer, ANZ Bank, EDP, Dominio's, Tampa General Hospital, W&W Informatik GmbH, Veterans General, Up Sí Vale, Sky Italia, REWE digital GmbH, Raymond James, Railinc, Navistar, Management Science Associates, Colruyt, CARFAX, Banpara, Aspiag Service, Amadeus, AG Insurance, ING Bank Slaski
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Control-M vs. Microsoft System Center Orchestrator and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.