Control-M Reviews

My use case for Control-M is orchestration.

The best features of Control-M are that it is easy to use; even a non-technical person can learn it in a couple of days with normal documentation and a few videos. Just two days should be sufficient to pick it up. Users do not need to be technical to use the tool, and it is easy to implement and deploy.

Integrating Control-M with other technologies for DataOps and DevOps is easy; we export the jobs we create in a non-prod environment and, on the runtime, we know what variables need to be replaced, and we replace those variables to deploy to prod since Control-M is just an XML file, which is very easy to search and replace.

Control-M is extensively used in our projects. When we start a project and it becomes an enterprise tool, we are required to use it. If there are any failures, we can tag them with an incident, making it easy for maintenance, monitoring, tracking, and deployment since everything is in one place.

The area that has room for improvement in Control-M is a better dashboard. For example, sometimes we have up to 100 Control-M jobs, and there is no dashboard to know how many jobs are in progress, completed, or waiting for files. That requires us to create an additional dashboard on top of the Control-M metadata.

I've been using Control-M since I started my career in data warehousing in 2011 or 2012 since there are more jobs, more tables, and more data loads in data warehousing.

When it comes to stability, I would rate it as good, an eight out of ten.

The scalability of Control-M is good; we create different servers for different projects instead of putting all jobs on one server, and I would rate scalability as an eight out of ten.

The technical support from Control-M is good; I normally never ask the Control-M team for help as it hasn't gotten stuck for me, however, they are supportive, and I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Positive

We have used different orchestration tools, however, I am not aware of the specific tools you mentioned.

The deployment of the solution is easy.

Regarding the duration of deployment, if everything is proper, I don't see a big challenge. Normally, it takes a day if you have the code ready and follow the process and checklist.

The return on investment seen with Control-M is significant; in my experience, we run more than 100 to 150 jobs a day, and to monitor those jobs, one or two people should be enough since it triggers emails for failures and allows us to view logs within Control-M itself.

I'm not sure about the pricing of Control-M. I didn't get involved at the pricing level.

When comparing Control-M with other solutions, I see that everywhere, orchestration tools are simple, and while they come with basic monitoring and alerting functionalities, the decision to use Control-M often comes down to cost, licensing, and maintenance.

My relationship with BMC is good. 

I recommend Control-M if there are no other tools available as it is easy to use, with easy maintenance and a centralized monitoring system, alerting system, and incident creation. 

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

My main business use cases supported by Control-M involve working with healthcare, insurance, telecoms, and banking, both retail and investment, primarily to ensure things are working. Much of this is in regulated industries, so we have established the necessary processes and tools to ensure that Control-M code is properly controlled, allowing us to satisfy SOX audits and other similar regulatory requirements.

Host groups are one of the most valuable (and unrecognised) features in Control-M and allows you to make your code environment agnostic. They allow for load-balancing, simple scaling, and technology groupings. Control-M supports my DataOps and DevOps initiatives by providing a single pane of glass to orchestrate and manage workflows across numerous systems. With the integrations, I have access to all my on-prem and cloud-based applications, and I can write my own interfaces for systems that are no longer supported, such as managing Solaris machines which still run for some of my clients.

Control-M integrates with new or changing technologies within my DataOps or DevOps stack fairly easily. The BMC team consistently develops new integrations at a rate of two or three a month. If they have not already got an integration available, it is very straightforward for me to create one myself, even for older technology through agentless connections to unsupported systems.

Control-M enables new capabilities or business processes that were not previously possible. There is significant capability embedded in the tool, some of which is not immediately obvious. With some creative thinking, I can leverage these capabilities to improve performance and allow Control-M to handle much of the load balancing.

One key element where Control-M could be improved is in providing a better audit trail for converting from development through to test and then to production environments. The process can currently be done, but the XML version is difficult. JSON offers an easier approach and is going to be the standard moving forward, so some XML-related issues will resolve naturally. For those still on XML for source control, it is an ideal opportunity to review procedures within Control-M to ensure compliance.

I joined JP Morgan in 2007, which introduced me to Control-M, and I have essentially been working with Control-M ever since then, marking 18 years this year.

The stability and reliability of Control-M in my experience is commendable; it simply works if set up correctly. Proper analysis of infrastructure requirements, source code control, and growth expectations should be carried out before commencing the migration. Once those factors are right, the conversion should run very smoothly. It is important that the conversion is carried out by a collaboration between teams that understand the old and new systems.

Control-M orchestrates workloads across multiple environments quite easily. I find that the graphical interface is very user-friendly, and although I have traditionally used the desktop interface, the web interface in version 22 is now nearly as effective as the desktop.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Control-M raises interesting points. Pricing is often perceived as high, and the licensing model can be unclear. However, in the end, it is clear that I am paying for a top-end tool which rarely experiences issues, with most problems stemming from the applications being managed rather than the tooling itself.

Regarding other solutions considered before selecting Control-M, I have seen conversions from Redwood and witnessed attempts to convert out of Control-M into a cheaper product. These attempts often ended in failure, leading to a reversion back to Control-M. Currently, I am looking at conversions from TWS into Control-M SaaS, and Axway into Control-M SaaS, along with several other potential conversions.

With proper planning, setuo is straightforward.

The biggest return on investment I have experienced with Control-M is the reduction in support time. If I set things up correctly with appropriate alerting levels, my support team can proactively prevent incidents rather than waiting for something to go wrong. The most significant metric is the number of support tickets prevented, rather than the number of support tickets closed.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Control-M raises interesting points. Pricing is often perceived as high, and the licensing model can be unclear. However, in the end, it is clear that I am paying for a top-end tool which rarely experiences issues, with most problems stemming from the applications being managed rather than the tooling itself.

When considering the overall experience with the migration processes of my customers, I find that if they approach the process with proper planning and due diligence, it typically goes very smoothly. A common mistake is trying to lift and drop what they had in another tool into Control-M without considering process differences, as the tools do not function the same way.

My advice to other companies considering Control-M is to conduct due diligence, examining not just initial costs but also ongoing expenses. It is essential to consider anticipated usage duration and growth patterns, as a correct setup facilitates easy growth, whereas a faulty setup complicates matters.

I would rate Control-M overall as a 10 out of 10.

Currently, I'm working as a senior software engineer in HSBC. Here in my organization, we are using Control-M as a batch job scheduler. We use folders, calendars, and templates in Control-M for a number of applications. On a daily basis, as I mentioned earlier, it is a batch job scheduler; we support this application for a number of markets, including seven markets in the APAC region, five markets in MENA, and another market called AOC China. Control-M is used for all these markets, which total around 13 markets. Daily, we have batches where we use shell scripting code in Control-M for routine work by creating a job that runs based on the timings specified. 

These jobs execute commands, and we receive logs. Regarding folders and calendars, we manage our schedules based on holidays, weekends, and month-end requirements with various calendars to avoid running jobs at unwanted times. For example, we have calendars for the first day of the month and for month-end reports. Folders help organize jobs categorized based on APAC, MENA, and AOC China regions, with each folder having jobs executed based on their dependencies and specified timings.

Control-M is very easy to use. There shouldn't be any technical knowledge required for using Control-M. I have experience with AutoSys, and I find Control-M easier to understand. There is no need for technical knowledge to use Control-M, making it more user-friendly compared to other tools in the market. The initial setup for Control-M is easier. The support we receive from BMC is wonderful. They contact us promptly and resolve any issues quickly.

There are a few suggestions for improvement. Currently, the history module captures only seven days of job execution data, and if we had at least 30 days available, that would be beneficial for investigating any issues. Additionally, in the monitoring module, we can only view 15 days of statistics for job execution, which includes details such as start time, end time, and runtime. I recommend that if we could have 30 days of statistics available, it would greatly enhance the Control-M user experience.

I have been using Control-M for around three and a half years.

The product is stable.

The scalability of Control-M rates as a nine out of ten.

Whenever we encounter any issue with Control-M and contact BMC, the support we receive from them is wonderful. They contact us promptly and resolve any issues quickly. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate their support a nine.

Positive

The initial setup for Control-M is easier than other solutions.

Comparing Control-M to other batch job schedulers in the market, I would give it an eight out of ten based on my experience.

Problems with Control-M can arise depending on the data center where the servers are hosted. There are occasional server down issues, which occur rarely and usually last only for a few minutes, after which everything is fine. We are customers of BMC, not partners.

I would definitely recommend Control-M to others because, based on my experience with other tools, BMC is recommended over others. Control-M is easier to understand, with no technical knowledge required. A quick glance at the modules shows that job creation and management is straightforward. Self-script developers can quickly familiarize themselves with Control-M compared to other tools available.

Overall, I rate Control-M eight out of ten.

I mainly use Control-M for scheduling jobs according to my requirements, which allows me to include holidays or exclude Saturdays, Sundays, or any specific time.

I also use cyclic jobs that run in a recurring period and can set up prerequisites before the job runs.

I can implement a File Watcher to establish a rule that a particular job can only run after the upstream job is completed.

I have created several new jobs using these capabilities.

Within Control-M, I use smart folders and jobs, and I can approach scheduling the way I want, so I have used it fully from start to end.

Control-M is straightforward for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows.

I use the XML side for configuration, which requires importing, and I find it user-friendly.

Control-M has been used for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows, especially at JPMorgan Chase Bank where most production support is monitored through Control-M.

I worked as a developer, developed jobs, and sent them to production, and the process was seamless.

My favorite feature about Control-M is the rule-based calendar feature.

The initial deployment of Control-M is straightforward, as it involves a simple installation of a Control-M agent within the server.

Control-M demonstrates strong scalability.

My application alone uses approximately 65 jobs, and for each folder, there are thousands of jobs that can load immediately in production.

When using a filter, the search is quick, and overall scalability has been excellent.

After migrating to Control-M, the positive effect on business-critical applications is evident: whenever a job ends successfully or fails, notifications are sent immediately.

These notifications go to EventBridge, alerting the team to any critical jobs.

High-priority jobs trigger alerts to engage developers immediately, ensuring there is no delay in response.

One area for improvement in Control-M could be in the logs, as they only show when the job started and whether it ended successfully or not.

Since the Control-M agent is running on the servers, we could pull up logs and display the actual error to aid in debugging.

I have been using Control-M for approximately eight to nine years in my career.

Regarding stability, I do not experience any lagging, crashing, or performance issues with Control-M.

Control-M demonstrates strong scalability.

My application alone uses approximately 65 jobs, and for each folder, there are thousands of jobs that can load immediately in production.

When using a filter, the search is quick, and overall scalability has been excellent.

I have never contacted technical support or customer support from BMC regarding Control-M because we have sufficient in-house expertise to share knowledge about it internally.

I started on TWS, Tivoli Workload Scheduler, which is an older tool with a poor user interface.

After transitioning to Control-M, I have been very satisfied with it.

I have not identified pain points until now because the use cases I addressed were fully satisfied by Control-M's capabilities.

Whatever use cases I needed, they were fulfilled by the product.

I used Tivoli Workload Scheduler earlier, but now the company has standardized on Control-M without using any other schedulers.

The initial deployment of Control-M is straightforward, as it involves a simple installation of a Control-M agent within the server.

Only one person is required for deployment, and it can be completed without needing a team.

For both job deployment and software installation, one person typically handles it, as we use an automation process with no manual work, making it a self-service operation.

I have personally used TWS as an alternative to Control-M.

I prefer Control-M over TWS.

The biggest difference between TWS and Control-M is that TWS has a poor user interface, while Control-M has an excellent user interface and alerting capabilities.

TWS requires monitoring on one page without navigation directions, whereas Control-M uses smart folders with parent and subfolders, maintaining a clear graph structure and allowing the creation of custom workspaces.

Regarding data pipelines, I have not explored integrating them via Control-M.

Non-technical users or business users do not need to use Control-M, as they primarily rely on developers or application support.

Currently, all employees at JPMorgan use Control-M for everything except mainframe jobs, which are monitored and developed through Control-M.

For maintenance, a patching team manages it, and I do not experience any downtime with Control-M.

I might not notice maintenance communications since they could be performed behind the scenes or during off-business hours.

I would rate this review an 8 out of 10.

My main use case for Control-M is job scheduling. I use Control-M for job scheduling by scheduling jobs for the asset team, like OS jobs, MFT jobs, and AFT jobs. I exclusively use Control-M for scheduling.

The best features Control-M offers include monitoring, planning, and forecast. Planning stands out the most for me in Control-M, as it helps me to schedule jobs.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization by allowing us to automate a lot of manual activities, so we are saving time.

Control-M can be improved with GUI features such as job failure monitoring, where the duration can be increased from 30 days to one year so that we can monitor long durations of job failures.

I have been using Control-M for 11 years.

Control-M is stable.

The scalability of Control-M is good.

The customer support for Control-M is fine.

Negative

I did not previously use a different solution.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing indicates that it is cheaper than other automation tools in the market.

We require five staff members for deployment and maintenance, and they all are consultants.

I have seen a return on investment, specifically in terms of money saved. We are saving a lot of time, as many activities that used to take around three to four hours by manual activity have been reduced to 30 minutes to one hour.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing indicates that it is cheaper than other automation tools in the market.

Before choosing Control-M, I did not evaluate other options.

My advice to others looking into using Control-M is that it is easy to use, flexible, and stable. The features in Control-M are good, and the GUI of Control-M is actually very fantastic.

Currently, 500 users are using Control-M in my organization, where the majority of them are from the application team and a few are admin and schedulers. Control-M is currently used extensively, and while we do not have plans to increase its usage, we are using Control-M in different domains.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Control-M is that it makes automation easy. It is easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for my data ops and DevOps processes as things change. I have automated activities on the Linux server while integrating with Control-M.

I would rate this product a 10.

My main use cases of Control-M involve workload automation, with two key areas being financial reconciliation and supply chain management. In financial reconciliation, a global financial services company pulls data from all its divisions around the world to perform end-of-day, end-of-month, and end-of-quarter reconciliation across a range of technologies, teams, and borders.

In supply chain management, manufacturers with retail stores need to ensure that the right stock is in the right places, which can be complicated. The third main use case relates to integration with SAP, making existing PA environments cheaper and less service-heavy. Those are the three main ones in my customer base.

My customers use Control-M to orchestrate workloads across multiple environments. Control-M orchestration is capable of handling complex data pipelines or analytic processes, which is key for some of our financial services customer use cases and is a relatively core part of their requirements.

My banking customer that moved some capabilities to the cloud uses Control-M for both on-premises and cloud technologies, so that's my awareness regarding the creation and automation of data pipelines across those environments.

The features of Control-M that I find most appealing, and that I've heard customers appreciate, include the file transfer capability, which is very unsexy but fundamentally important. It's what it's all about—extracting data and moving it to different places.

The relationship between Control-M and my clients' DataOps and DevOps initiatives is complex. Most of our customers have their DevOps initiatives somewhat divorced from the Control-M elements. However, this is slowly changing as DevOps starts to incorporate both customer-facing aspects and the internal legacy parts of their business. They are gradually integrating, and that agile way of working is coming closer together.

The measurable benefits or improvements my clients have seen with Control-M relate to compliance, particularly in financial reconciliation. There are significant financial penalties for errors in this area, so it's crucial to develop a robust integration with ITSM systems to ensure that tasks perform as intended and meet the right SLAs.

Control-M can be improved by continuing the trend of being both a mature product and one that is not standing still, as evidenced by the ongoing improvements we've seen. The file transfer piece is particularly popular, and it's essential to keep up with the demands that customers place on it.

I suspect a lot of my customers aren't pushing the boundaries of what Control-M can scale to, but the job scheduler approach allows for immense scalability. Many of our customers are only beginning to explore its capabilities.

I have been selling Control-M for one and a half years.

I don't believe any of my customers have reported issues around the availability of Control-M regarding stability and reliability.

I suspect a lot of my customers aren't pushing the boundaries of what Control-M can scale to, but the job scheduler approach allows for immense scalability. Many of our customers are only beginning to explore its capabilities.

I haven't heard any complaints about BMC's service team support; as far as I know, customers feel comfortable about it. Of course, I can't speak from personal experience.

Neutral

There is a competitor to Control-M that many of my customers consider; the big one is IBM's IWS. There is some anecdotal evidence of dissatisfaction among customers regarding support since it has moved to HCL. I recently spoke to someone about exactly that scenario.

The overall experience of the migration and deployment process for my customers tends to be a horror show because migrations are critical and touch everything. The biggest challenge people face is unpicking the complexities involved. Thus, it's often hard to simply migrate, especially while maintaining a good relationship with the existing vendor.

On the topic of pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Control-M, everyone moans about it. We work with some customers on optimizing their job structure to deliver proper value for money. This is significant work, as getting value for money is a challenge we constantly address.

The biggest return on investment for users of Control-M in the financial sector can be fairly straightforward: you can easily state how much performing tasks manually would cost in person-hours. By avoiding financial penalties from regulations, the business case essentially writes itself. In manufacturing, it's more complex, as you look at how to minimize manual costs and whether Control-M helps reduce customer churn and ensures stock is in the right location. Extracting this information aids in making the business case.

On the topic of pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Control-M, everyone moans about it. We work with some customers on optimizing their job structure to deliver proper value for money. This is significant work, as getting value for money is a challenge we constantly address.

There is a competitor to Control-M that many of my customers consider; the big one is IBM's IWS. There is some anecdotal evidence of dissatisfaction among customers regarding support since it has moved to HCL. I recently spoke to someone about exactly that scenario.

In my company, zero users interact with Control-M because we don't actively use it; we just sell it. My customer base ranges widely, with some cases having a small batch team of a few dozen users up to hundreds, probably more in rough figures. I wouldn't have huge visibility on that.

I have heard of the Control-M Python client or API very recently. My experience selling the Control-M Python client or API is relatively new to me. It's not entirely new, but it hasn't come up much in my customer base. However, as DevOps and Control-M are becoming better together, I am seeing more of that.

Regarding metrics or data on how my customers perceive Control-M, I don't have any off the top of my head, and I probably would be privileged to know.

My advice to a company considering Control-M is to bring us in to help with the assessment work. Go through a value stream exercise to clarify what you're trying to accomplish and examine the entire end-to-end process. Control-M and workload automation is a solved problem; it's something you should buy rather than build yourself. That would eliminate undifferentiated heavy lifting. Certainly, we can assist clients with automation and value chain assessment, especially beyond the BMC space, which often presents a messy and complex landscape. I would rate this product a 9 out of 10.

Control-M is used to run Oracle scripts with scheduled jobs including monthly, weekly, and yearly schedules. Around 50 or more jobs are run every week. Control-M connects to the database, triggers all procedures, performs the operation, and generates the final report. The log is sent to mailboxes detailing how the process went, any issues, or any errors. If there are issues, the mailbox is checked; otherwise, a message indicating successful completion is received along with statistics such as how much time the process took and which processes were run. Jobs are scheduled once, Control-M jobs are created, timing is set up, and the jobs fire automatically at the particular time.

Control-M is used to connect to Oracle products, and through Control-M, a Tableau dashboard is maintained. Most of the scheduling jobs use Control-M to schedule. Control-M helps all products, making it a utility that can be used wherever scheduling features are needed. It is not just for DevOps, databases, or front-end applications; it can be used anywhere without manual intervention to perform particular activities. Wherever there is an opportunity for scheduling jobs, Control-M is the first option.

For migration, Control-M is considered very good. Once all the source and target details are configured in Control-M, it can automatically migrate data. It requires proper configuration and specifying the necessary changes for target technology along with the source system scripts. If properly configured, the complete migration can be triggered end to end. Data migrations and reporting, along with all scheduling activities, can be efficiently managed.

The best features in Control-M include sending emails to mailboxes after the process is completed and providing proper acknowledgement reports. The timing is impressive; it connects very fast and performs activities efficiently. The UI is very friendly, making it easy to configure jobs in Control-M. If core technology scripts are available, creating Control-M jobs is a five-minute task. The GUI is very friendly, which simplifies task assignment, scheduling, canceling, and all these operations, making it easily navigable.

Every week, 50 jobs are run using Control-M. If those 50 jobs were being run manually, it would take more than a week. Through Control-M, the jobs are able to be scheduled within two days, saving around five days of effort.

Before Control-M, jobs would be run on Friday evening so that the process would end by Sunday night, allowing the business to start on Monday. Without Control-M, everything would have to be run manually throughout the week. Thanks to Control-M, around five days are being saved. Otherwise, old data would be received for the current week's business, but now the latest data is received.

Control-M has room for improvement in displaying dashboard-like graphical reports once processes are completed. For example, after scheduling 50 jobs, if a dashboard showing the completed scripts, status, and time taken is displayed within Control-M itself, it would be very helpful. Currently, mailboxes are checked for reports; if it were in Control-M, anyone could check it. Only those configured with specific mail IDs receive emails, so if a few members are not set up, they will not see the reports. If it were available in Control-M, those users could directly check the dashboard.

Control-M has been used for the last two years from the beginning of the project level. Earlier, it was already there in Control-M that the client was using.

The same score for stability is a nine out of ten.

Control-M is capable of handling a large volume of processing if the necessary memory space is provided to the server.

Great support is received, with a rating of nine out of ten.

Positive

Control-M would definitely be recommended because it saves a lot of time. If everything were being done manually, it would take a lot of time to run and validate scripts. If everything is configured in Control-M, even non-experts like front-end staff can trigger jobs, making it simple. It is a one-time configuration, and anyone can trigger it. That is the best part; significant time is saved, and there is no waiting time; the next process starts immediately once the current one is completed. If dependencies are set in Control-M, it starts the next task automatically. That is why Control-M is highly recommended for scheduling.

The client is a big enterprise client.

Control-M requires occasional maintenance, maybe yearly or once every six months for upgrades. A Control-M team manages activities such as maintenance every six months or once a year, including cleaning up scripts or memory.

Around 15 members are using Control-M.

The overall review rating for Control-M is ten out of ten.

Control-M manages pretty much everything in our hemisphere, helping us meet our financial regulatory obligations, file transfers, running scripts, PowerShell, and SQL, making it critical to our day-to-day operations.

Control-M supports our DataOps and DevOps initiatives by providing an avenue for our DevOps teams to problem-solve in an easy way, giving them a platform to build on rather than having to start from scratch.

The measurable benefits or improvements we've achieved with Control-M are critical in the finance industry, as it keeps us on target with all regulatory requirements. Without Control-M, I don't know where we'd be, and if we shut it off, the business would probably run for about six hours before we faced serious issues, highlighting its role as a key component to our success.

Control-M has definitely enabled new capabilities and business processes that weren't possible before, allowing us to go to other departments and problem-solve for them, eliminating manual tasks that have been done for years. Departments now benefit from not even needing to look back at whether a task is being done since the information is readily available, providing them more time in their day for productivity and enhancing life for our customers.

Control-M is a great product already, but everything can do with a bit of improvement. Personally, I'd like to see a little bit more color in the web interface, and in terms of its technical ability, the one thing I would be critical about is a bit more user-friendliness with the reports and the way we input information into it.

I've been working with Control-M for three years.

Once we have tested things and gotten them into play, during the three years that I've been working with Control-M, I've encountered only one problem, and BMC's support has been quite good, allowing us to solve that issue quickly and easily.

Once we have tested things and gotten them into play, during the three years that I've been working with Control-M, I've encountered only one problem, and BMC's support has been quite good, allowing us to solve that issue quickly and easily.

Neutral

The biggest return on investment from using Control-M, from my point of view, is the ease of use and the time it gives our employees back in their day to be more productive.

I would give Control-M a very good rating in building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring workflows. It is pretty easy to use, and we have taken people without any type of formal training and been able to get them into using Control-M fully as a scheduler within weeks, proving its ease of use. In terms of its use for scheduling and building, it provides options, and it comes back to having flexibility, which is appreciated by anyone who has worked in the build area. With all the plug-in options and various job types that you can create, it increases the flexibility and the avenues available for using Control-M as a solution.

I've not had much interaction with licensing. In terms of costs, I think in life you have to pay for what you want, and generally, if you want quality, you've got to pay for it, but in my limited knowledge of pricing outside of Control-M and BMC, I think it is competitive, recognizing there's not a lot out there like Control-M, making it difficult to determine what the price should be as it is a critical piece of work worth its value. I would rate this product an 8.5 out of 10.