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 MuleSoft Anypoint Platform.
The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.
Control-M surpasses its competitors by offering comprehensive automation solutions, robust scheduling capabilities, and seamless integration with cloud environments, enhancing operational efficiency and flexibility for complex enterprise workflows.
BMC Alternatives Report
Learn what solutions real users are comparing with BMC, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Control-M excels in cross-platform automation and integration, particularly beneficial for banking. In comparison, Camunda provides an intuitive modeling environment with open-source flexibility. Control-M's extensive capability suits complex scheduling needs, while Camunda's ease of integration appeals to users seeking adaptable process modeling.
Appian excels in rapid app development through its low-code interface ideal for quick ROI. In comparison, Control-M focuses on automating complex workflows in enterprises. Tech buyers may choose Appian for intuitive BPM features, while Control-M suits those needing robust automation and integration capabilities.
Control-M offers extensive cross-platform support through robust modules, ideal for comprehensive task automation. In comparison, MuleSoft Anypoint Platform excels in API management with seamless integrations. Each solution provides distinct advantages, catering to different organizational needs and deployment preferences.
Control-M has a lower setup cost, offering a more budget-friendly option, while MuleSoft Anypoint Platform involves higher initial expenses, reflecting its comprehensive feature set.
Control-M has a lower setup cost, offering a more budget-friendly option, while MuleSoft Anypoint Platform involves higher initial expenses, reflecting its comprehensive feature set.
Pega Platform is ideal for rapid implementation and workflow automation with low-code flexibility. In comparison, Control-M excels in cross-platform scheduling for complex environments. Pega's ROI is significant for large enterprises, while Control-M offers valuable returns through enterprise workload automation.
Control-M excels in automation and integration for high-volume job scheduling, appealing to large enterprises seeking efficiency. In comparison, IBM BPM's strong orchestration capabilities and process management make it attractive for organizations needing robust integration across systems despite its complexity and higher cost.
Control-M has a higher setup cost than IBM BPM, making it a pricier initial investment. In contrast, IBM BPM offers a lower setup cost, appealing to budget-conscious users seeking efficient process management solutions.
Control-M has a higher setup cost than IBM BPM, making it a pricier initial investment. In contrast, IBM BPM offers a lower setup cost, appealing to budget-conscious users seeking efficient process management solutions.
Control-M excels in complex scheduling and extensive integration, making it suitable for businesses needing detailed monitoring and automation capabilities. In comparison, AutoSys Workload Automation offers a cost-effective solution with potential improvements in cloud integration and user interface, appealing to budget-conscious buyers focused on essential features.
Control-M setup costs are higher due to extensive customization options, whereas AutoSys Workload Automation offers a more economical setup with fewer options for customization.
Control-M setup costs are higher due to extensive customization options, whereas AutoSys Workload Automation offers a more economical setup with fewer options for customization.
Control-M excels in automating complex workflows, offering features like cross-platform support and seamless integration with applications such as SAP and Hadoop. In comparison, SnapLogic provides a low-code environment, strong data integration, scalability, and flexibility for big data and high-volume scenarios.
Control-M has a higher setup cost compared to SnapLogic, which offers more competitive pricing for implementation, making Control-M potentially less accessible for budget-conscious users.
Control-M has a higher setup cost compared to SnapLogic, which offers more competitive pricing for implementation, making Control-M potentially less accessible for budget-conscious users.
Control-M excels in cross-platform workflows and integration without custom scripts, suitable for comprehensive enterprise needs. In comparison, Automic Automation offers powerful scripting flexibility for process automation and customizable workflows, appealing to those prioritizing scripting capabilities and detailed business process customization.
Control-M's setup cost is lower than Automic Automation, highlighting a budget-friendly option for users comparing implementation expenses. In contrast, Automic Automation presents a higher initial investment, which might offer a different financial consideration.
Control-M's setup cost is lower than Automic Automation, highlighting a budget-friendly option for users comparing implementation expenses. In contrast, Automic Automation presents a higher initial investment, which might offer a different financial consideration.
IBM Workload Automation appeals to budget-conscious buyers with its competitive pricing and robust support. In comparison, Control-M offers superior features with enhanced real-time monitoring and integration, making it ideal for enterprises seeking extensive capabilities and are willing to invest more for long-term benefits.
IBM Workload Automation typically has a lower initial setup cost, while Control-M may involve a more substantial setup investment, reflecting its extensive feature set.
IBM Workload Automation typically has a lower initial setup cost, while Control-M may involve a more substantial setup investment, reflecting its extensive feature set.
Control-M offers extensive integration capabilities and automation for job scheduling across environments, appealing to users needing seamless connectivity. In comparison, MOVEit is ideal for organizations emphasizing secure file transfers with robust logging and user management, prioritizing data transfer security.
Control-M generally features a high initial setup cost, whereas MOVEit offers lower upfront expenses, making it a more budget-friendly option for initial deployment.
Control-M generally features a high initial setup cost, whereas MOVEit offers lower upfront expenses, making it a more budget-friendly option for initial deployment.
Control-M offers robust integration, diverse job types, and proactive management. In comparison, IBM Sterling focuses on secure, high-capacity file transfers with strong encryption. Control-M's efficiency enhancements benefit large enterprises, while IBM Sterling's reliable security features appeal to those prioritizing secure data transfers.
Nintex excels with intuitive design and extensive integrations, ideal for optimizing workflows. In comparison, Control-M offers robust multi-platform scheduling and diverse third-party support, making it suitable for complex operations. Nintex is expensive but effective; Control-M's cost is justified by its capabilities.
Nintex Process Platform has a straightforward setup cost with no hidden fees, while Control-M requires a higher initial investment with additional customization costs. Users often find Nintex more cost-effective in the initial setup.
Nintex Process Platform has a straightforward setup cost with no hidden fees, while Control-M requires a higher initial investment with additional customization costs. Users often find Nintex more cost-effective in the initial setup.
Control-M excels in cross-application integration for complex enterprise environments, ideal for diverse applications and AS400 systems. In comparison, AWS Step Functions offers excellent integration within the AWS ecosystem, appealing for its seamless workflows and scalability, beneficial for cloud-native operations.
Control-M integrates complex environments with ease, ideal for enterprise-level deployments. In comparison, Redwood RunMyJobs excels in error-handling and cost-effectiveness, appealing to small to medium-sized businesses seeking efficient automation and streamlined integration with SaaS and on-premise solutions.
Ab Initio Co>Operating System offers compelling scalability and lower setup costs for an attractive short-term ROI. In comparison, Control-M provides enhanced workflow automation, an extensive integration suite, and long-term benefits that align well with enterprise requirements despite its higher initial investment.
Ab Initio Co>Operating System has higher setup costs, while Control-M features lower initial expenses, emphasizing cost-effective entry. Differences highlight Ab Initio's advanced functionalities compared to Control-M's budget-friendly approach.
Ab Initio Co>Operating System has higher setup costs, while Control-M features lower initial expenses, emphasizing cost-effective entry. Differences highlight Ab Initio's advanced functionalities compared to Control-M's budget-friendly approach.
Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct excels in secure data transfers with a focus on high-volume processing. In comparison, Control-M offers extensive scheduling and workload automation, ideal for managing complex IT environments, appealing to those seeking robust infrastructure integration and strategic IT support.
Control-M offers comprehensive workflow management and automation for IT operations. In comparison, GoAnywhere focuses on secure data transfer, offering cost-effective solutions. Control-M is ideal for large environments, while GoAnywhere appeals to organizations prioritizing security and streamlined file transfers.
Control-M excels in integration and process automation for complex environments, critical for industries like banking. In comparison, ServiceNow Orchestration offers comprehensive IT process automation with a strong focus on service management integration, appealing to businesses seeking extensive cloud scalability and structured deployment.
Control-M has a more affordable setup cost compared to the higher setup expense of ServiceNow Orchestration, highlighting a significant cost difference in initial deployment investments.
Control-M has a more affordable setup cost compared to the higher setup expense of ServiceNow Orchestration, highlighting a significant cost difference in initial deployment investments.
Control-M provides robust automation and integration across platforms, ideal for large enterprises with complex scheduling needs and SAP or Oracle integration. In comparison, Stonebranch stands out for its cost-effectiveness and ease of deployment, making it suitable for environments with fewer tasks or agents.
Control-M excels with strong integration and complex workflow management, appealing to enterprises with diverse software environments. In comparison, Tidal by Redwood offers effective error handling and dynamic scheduling, making it ideal for finance sectors needing event-driven automation. Control-M's expansive capabilities contrast Tidal by Redwood's cost-effective clarity.
Control-M setup costs are moderate and reflect its comprehensive feature set, while Tidal by Redwood offers a more affordable initial setup, appealing to budget-conscious users.
Control-M setup costs are moderate and reflect its comprehensive feature set, while Tidal by Redwood offers a more affordable initial setup, appealing to budget-conscious users.
Control-M offers extensive scheduling and integration features, appealing to enterprises needing robust AS400 automation. In comparison, Temporal, with its open-source model and focus on developer-centric orchestration, attracts businesses seeking cost-effective solutions for complex workflows in modern architectures.
Control-M appeals with its extensive integration support, ideal for complex systems. In comparison, ActiveBatch's strong job scheduling and pre-built job steps cater to diverse needs. Control-M's varied deployment options contrast with ActiveBatch's effective cost structure, drawing distinct buyer preferences.
Control-M excels in automating complex data workflows with support for multiple languages and cloud services. In comparison, VisualCron offers simplicity in automation with straightforward integration and competitive pricing, making it ideal for smaller enterprises seeking quick, simple task execution.
Control-M offers a robust feature set with advanced capabilities, justifying its pricing. In comparison, Rocket Zena is favored for its ease of deployment and flexible support, making it appealing for budget-conscious organizations seeking quick implementation and effective workload automation solutions.
Control-M's setup cost is higher, indicating a potentially larger upfront investment, while Rocket Zena offers a more budget-friendly initial expense, highlighting a key difference in pricing strategy.
Control-M's setup cost is higher, indicating a potentially larger upfront investment, while Rocket Zena offers a more budget-friendly initial expense, highlighting a key difference in pricing strategy.
Control-M excels in managing complex processes with extensive scheduling and integration features, ideal for banking sectors. In comparison, OpCon's unique self-service capabilities and KeyStone integration make it well-suited for credit unions and smaller IT environments seeking tailored automation solutions.
Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer offers robust security and scalability, ideal for secure file transfers. In comparison, Control-M excels in automation and integration capabilities, providing comprehensive workflow management for tech buyers prioritizing extensive features and long-term operational efficiency.
Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer offers a relatively lower setup cost compared to Control-M, which may influence initial budget considerations. Control-M's setup involves more investment, potentially reflecting its broader capabilities and feature set.
Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer offers a relatively lower setup cost compared to Control-M, which may influence initial budget considerations. Control-M's setup involves more investment, potentially reflecting its broader capabilities and feature set.
Control-M excels with robust automation and integration for complex workflows, ideal for large enterprises. In comparison, JAMS prioritizes cost-effectiveness and ease of deployment, appealing to organizations valuing simple setup and support. Both offer strong customer service with distinct strengths.
Control-M excels in advanced job scheduling and cross-platform support, ideal for complex operations. In comparison, OpenText Operations Orchestration offers rich integration and automation flexibility, making it suitable for diverse IT processes seeking rapid deployment and integration versatility without heavy scheduling focus.
Control-M offers a straightforward setup at a competitive cost, whereas OpenText Operations Orchestration may require higher initial investment, highlighting significant cost differences in implementation.
Control-M offers a straightforward setup at a competitive cost, whereas OpenText Operations Orchestration may require higher initial investment, highlighting significant cost differences in implementation.
vCenter Orchestrator is optimal for managing VMware environments with free data movement and workflow automation. In comparison, Control-M supports diverse platforms with advanced scheduling for complex jobs. Buyers might choose vCenter for VMware integration, while Control-M suits those needing comprehensive cross-platform orchestration.
BizTalk Server offers robust integration features ideal for complex environments. In comparison, Control-M excels in workflow automation and job scheduling. While Control-M provides operational efficiency, BizTalk Server supports various protocols. Tech buyers evaluate integration versus automation when choosing.
BizTalk Server has variable setup costs depending on the specific configurations needed, while Control-M requires a more standardized initial investment. Control-M's setup cost tends to be higher due to comprehensive features offered from the start.
BizTalk Server has variable setup costs depending on the specific configurations needed, while Control-M requires a more standardized initial investment. Control-M's setup cost tends to be higher due to comprehensive features offered from the start.
Control-M excels in ease of use, offering centralized management and streamlined workflows. In comparison, HCL Workload Automation provides advanced scheduling and integration possibilities, appealing to those needing sophisticated configurations. Both solutions cater to different organizational needs based on complexity and functionality.
Control-M excels with comprehensive features and seamless integration, appealing to enterprises. In comparison, CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence is favored for its scalability and advanced analytics, attracting tech buyers aiming for data-driven insights and strategic benefits. Each product offers unique advantages for specific business needs.
Control-M setup costs are considered higher due to more extensive configuration options, while CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence offers lower initial expenses, focusing on simpler implementation.
Control-M setup costs are considered higher due to more extensive configuration options, while CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence offers lower initial expenses, focusing on simpler implementation.
Control-M offers robust automation across platforms, ideal for complex schedules in industries like banking. In comparison, Globalscape EFT emphasizes secure file transfers with efficient deployment. Control-M provides extensive features with higher costs, while Globalscape EFT offers a cost-effective option with competitive pricing.
Control-M excels in integration and complex workflow management, appealing to tech buyers needing cross-platform support. In comparison, AppWorx appeals to those valuing simplicity and AI capabilities despite its lack of mainframe support, with straightforward deployment across multiple environments.
Control-M shows a higher setup cost, attracting users seeking features worth the price, while AppWorx Workload Automation presents a more accessible setup cost, appealing to budget-conscious customers looking for cost efficiency.
Control-M shows a higher setup cost, attracting users seeking features worth the price, while AppWorx Workload Automation presents a more accessible setup cost, appealing to budget-conscious customers looking for cost efficiency.
Control-M excels in automation and integration, ideal for banking. In comparison, JSCAPE specializes in secure, fast file transfers with robust encryption. Control-M suits large enterprises with its ROI despite high costs, whereas JSCAPE offers affordable, efficient solutions for smaller businesses.
Control-M excels in job scheduling and efficiency, appealing to buyers focused on cost-effective solutions. In comparison, CA XCOM Data Transport offers secure cross-platform data transfers, attracting those prioritizing robust functionality despite higher initial costs and complex deployment.
Control-M often involves higher initial setup costs due to its extensive features, whereas CA XCOM Data Transport generally offers a more economical setup, focusing on simplified data transport functionalities that cater to more straightforward infrastructure needs.
Control-M often involves higher initial setup costs due to its extensive features, whereas CA XCOM Data Transport generally offers a more economical setup, focusing on simplified data transport functionalities that cater to more straightforward infrastructure needs.
Control-M excels with integrations and cloud support, appealing for its deployment ease and cost efficiency. In comparison, Dollar Universe Workload Automation's strengths in scalability, complex workflow creation, and personalized service make it a compelling choice for organizations seeking future-ready solutions.
Control-M involves higher setup costs compared to Dollar Universe Workload Automation, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment requirements.
Control-M involves higher setup costs compared to Dollar Universe Workload Automation, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment requirements.
Control-M excels in customer support and scalability, appealing to large enterprises. In comparison, Rundeck's open-source model and flexible integration are ideal for budget-conscious, innovative teams seeking easy customization and modern DevOps adaptability.
Control-M features higher setup costs, focusing on enterprise-level solutions, while Rundeck offers lower setup costs, appealing to smaller teams or projects.
Control-M features higher setup costs, focusing on enterprise-level solutions, while Rundeck offers lower setup costs, appealing to smaller teams or projects.
Control-M offers robust scheduling and integration ideal for complex environments. In comparison, Rocket Zeke provides advanced features with scalability, appealing to enterprises seeking future-proof solutions. Control-M's straightforward deployment and pricing stand out, while Rocket Zeke offers flexibility despite requiring a higher initial investment.
Control-M excels with cost-effective pricing, balanced support, and versatile deployment, appealing to organizations needing robust integration. In comparison, ESP dSeries attracts buyers requiring detailed, customizable workflows with its powerful scripting and job tracking capabilities ideal for intricate automation needs.
Control-M provides extensive support and advanced batch processing, appealing to those seeking reliable implementation assistance. In comparison, Axway Automator's ease of automation and integration features make it attractive to buyers prioritizing intuitive workflows and platform connectivity.
Control-M requires a higher initial setup cost, while Axway Automator offers a more economical setup option, highlighting a significant cost difference in initial investment for users.
Control-M requires a higher initial setup cost, while Axway Automator offers a more economical setup option, highlighting a significant cost difference in initial investment for users.
Control-M benefits enterprises with complex workloads through robust job scheduling and management. In comparison, Azure Automation appeals to cloud-focused businesses with its low initial cost and seamless Azure integration. Control-M suits traditional setups, while Azure Automation offers agility for cloud-native environments.
Control-M excels with integration, especially with AS400 systems, offering robust cross-platform support ideal for industries like banking. In comparison, UiPath Orchestrator simplifies centralized automation management for repetitive tasks, providing an intuitive solution for efficient deployment, especially beneficial in cloud environments.
Control-M has an initial setup cost that may be higher, offering comprehensive enterprise solutions, whereas UiPath Orchestrator provides a potentially more cost-effective setup suitable for smaller operations. The pricing reflects distinct market positions and feature emphasis.
Control-M has an initial setup cost that may be higher, offering comprehensive enterprise solutions, whereas UiPath Orchestrator provides a potentially more cost-effective setup suitable for smaller operations. The pricing reflects distinct market positions and feature emphasis.
Control-M excels in scheduling and workload automation with affordable pricing and strong support. In comparison, Oracle Process Cloud Service offers advanced integration and cloud-native solutions, making it attractive for enterprises seeking comprehensive automation despite higher costs.
Control-M typically involves a higher initial setup cost compared to Oracle Process Cloud Service which offers more competitive pricing, making it a more budget-friendly option for businesses.
Control-M typically involves a higher initial setup cost compared to Oracle Process Cloud Service which offers more competitive pricing, making it a more budget-friendly option for businesses.
Control-M excels in deployment efficiency and customer support, ideal for traditional enterprises. In comparison, Astro by Astronomer offers superior scalability and integration for tech-forward organizations, making it attractive for those prioritizing connectivity and future-proofing despite higher initial costs.
