Control-M Reviews

My use case for Control-M includes file transfer and workload balancing, but it is mostly focused on workflow management.

I love Control-M's reliability and ease of use. It offers ease of adaptability for upgrades, and the GUI features have been enhanced for better readability. Their reporting improvements are notable, and they developed software that helps manage licensing effectively.

Control-M is incredibly reliable, rarely having issues from an administrative standpoint. The high stability means I am rarely surprised by problems. Additionally, time-saving is significant; previously, scheduling involved paper and took much longer. Control-M reduced the scheduling time drastically, taking only about five to ten minutes to add a new job to the workflow.

One area that has room for improvement is support. Early on, support was fabulous, with efficient issue resolution processes. However, since approximately 2015, support has been lackluster, relying too much on email. I would suggest a return to hands-on support engagement.

Aside from the support aspect, I cannot think of anything else that needs improvement.

I started using Control-M in 2000.

Regarding stability, I would give Control-M a ten. Control-M is such a reliable piece of software. I rarely, if ever, have to do anything from an administrative point of view. When someone calls me with a Control-M problem, it surprises me as it is mostly stable.

Control-M is scalable. The easiest way to express this is regarding licensing; as you are scaling up, you should keep up with your licensing. BMC does an annual review, and your account representative will reach out for a licensing software run that generates a report using all Control-M components.

From one to ten, with ten being the best, I would rate their technical support about a seven.

Concerning Control-M, I previously started out with scheduling package software back in the old Uccel, which was bought by Computer Associates and called CA-7.

Installing Control-M was really quite easy; you simply download it and do the installation. The biggest thing is the front-end work prior to installation, such as deciding which database you will use.

My relationship with BMC is probably transactional. I rarely have to reach out to them.

The BMC service team could be better at being more involved in mapping out migration strategies, though they have a really good process called AMIGO that yields positive outcomes.

In terms of time savings with Control-M, I spend maybe thirty minutes a week, if that, on Control-M compared to other software products I have dealt with.

I did not have much engagement in the pricing area.

Regarding other solutions, Redwood was the only one I was familiar with. I saw a demo on that before 2010 when management was looking at maybe replacing Control-M.

Deployment is on a Windows platform in a high availability environment.

I would recommend Control-M to others looking to implement it, but it is essential to ensure it fits your environment, so doing a proof of concept is always beneficial.

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.

I have used Control-M mostly for batch monitoring across three projects with financial institutions. The primary focus was on batch monitoring and checking the health of the environment in production or pre-production settings. In almost every project, we implemented jobs that check network connection from the mainframe and database health. I monitored and controlled many different processes with Control-M. I mostly used the Windows version, but I have also used the version that operates inside the IBM mainframe.

I did not use Control-M for audit preparation. I knew that other people in my company used Control-M for audit purposes, but that was not my case.

In the mainframe part, Control-M works smoothly and perfectly with no lag or problems. However, in Windows, it certainly has some problems at times. I do not remember which version I was using, but it has a lot of lag when you try to click for rerun. You click it, the job starts working, but the display does not show the information that the job is already running. Sometimes it does not have the option for confirmation, so it was annoying to click run and not see the job working or doing anything because of the lag on the screen. Sometimes you click rerun or click the rerun button twice, so you get a second run that you did not want, but because of the lag, you get the second run. This was the most annoying thing in Control-M.

Regarding what I would want improved, the tool in the mainframe would be very helpful with a report that you can follow directly in the path of the jobs. In the Windows version, you have all the graphics, so you can follow your path and see when it is going to run and how it is scheduled, which allows you to work more easily to change, hold, or make any movement in the job. In the mainframe version, it is complicated sometimes to follow the same path. You need to consult a lot of documentation for the planning of how the jobs are done, but you cannot find this information directly in Control-M in the mainframe.

I think the biggest thing I would like Control-M to improve in the mainframe is some way to track or follow the jobs a little bit more graphically, similar to the Windows version. I know it is very complicated, but that is my feeling.

I would appreciate Control-M being more complex when it has more features, such as when you are making the planning for the batch. The more complex your tool is, the more you can do for certain parameters or to put a job exactly between two different processes. You can accomplish more with a more complex interface and tools. I think probably other job scheduling tools get a little bit easier or offer a more light version and a simplified version, but I think not. At least for me, when I was making the planning or checking the batch, the more complex and different tools for the different situations that you have in the batch is the better.

I have been working with Control-M for about five years.

There are a lot of stability issues, and it depends on the platform. In the mainframe part, Control-M works smoothly and perfectly with no lag or problems. However, in Windows, it certainly has some problems at times. I do not remember which version I was using, but it has a lot of lag when you try to click for rerun. You click it, the job starts working, but the display does not show the information that the job is already running. Sometimes it does not have the option for confirmation, so it was annoying to click run and not see the job working or doing anything because of the lag on the screen. Sometimes you click rerun or click the rerun button twice, so you get a second run that you did not want, but because of the lag, you get the second run. This was the most annoying thing in Control-M.

I do not have a certain response for how scalable Control-M is because every time I have needed to use it, it covers everything and I think that is great scalability. However, I have never been in a situation in which Control-M is insufficient and I need a more powerful tool for scaling or anything related to that. So, at least for my experience, it is great.

In the two projects I have been working on, the maintenance was from BMC directly. I actually did not know that other people can give maintenance or support directly to the tool because I have always used it through BMC, which actually provides great support. It is very useful and they respond very quickly, so I never figured out that we would probably need local support.

In the last project, we had a BMC group who was in charge of us or they responded directly to the last enterprise, in the last company where I was, so it was very helpful. If we had any problem regarding Control-M or BMC, they have a team in the company ready to support us.

I used another one, but I do not remember the name quite well. It was a bit more for DBA, but I do not remember. It was also a job scheduling tool, but I do not remember the name quite well. It was about six or seven years ago.

The initial deployment was pretty easy. Even the one in the mainframe was easy to follow. The one in Windows is super easy to start working with, and if you have minimum knowledge about COBOL and how the mainframe works, you will be very easily walked through the JCL. Also, the feature that you can see the JCL in the Windows version is fantastic.

I am probably not the correct one because I have never done a quotation for the team to integrate the tool for the team or for any specific project, so I do not have information about this.

As I said, I used another job scheduler in the past. I do not remember it quite well, but right now, it is very complicated to see another job scheduler that is not Control-M because I am very used to it. Also, since it is the principal tool in the mainframe for job scheduling, it is also complicated for me to try to figure out another tool for job scheduling because it has a lot of options. It is actually a pretty good tool for monitoring the jobs or for my experience and in the areas where I have been working. So, at this moment I cannot imagine another tool right now because Control-M is actually all that I need for my work.

In the two projects I have been working on, the maintenance was from BMC directly. I actually did not know that other people can give maintenance or support directly to the tool because I have always used it through BMC, which actually provides great support. It is very useful and they respond very quickly, so I never figured out that we would probably need local support.

For my last experience, I would give a rating of ten because we have this team specifically for us. However, in the past with another project when we had to call BMC directly for support, I think that overall I would give them an eight. I would give the support an eight overall.

I give this review a rating of nine.

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.

I am currently working as a Data Engineer at Cognizant. I have been using Control-M for the past eight months since I joined Cognizant as a Data Engineer. As a Data Engineer, my job is to monitor jobs and maintain pipelines, and Control-M is a scheduler tool which we use to schedule jobs by linking the jobs as predecessors and successors so that the flow of the data pipelines continues without human interference.

The daily important task which we are monitoring is the SaleRPT report, which gives business users the sales that happened the previous day in a restaurant at our project in Cognizant. The jobs are connected in such a way that starting, there are replication jobs, and then they are connected to SQL Server to transform the data and load it into Oracle SQL. From there, again, the data is loaded into our data warehouse tables, and the final target tables are Essbase. So this total flow has around 17 to 18 jobs which are scheduled to run twice a day when we get EOD clearance for each site. So these are the latest tasks for which I used Control-M to schedule jobs in a sequential manner.

In our legacy system, there are some Informatica jobs and some SnapLogic jobs. For example, there are three sets of jobs which are from Informatica, and the next successor jobs are from SnapLogic. Control-M allows us to link these Informatica jobs to SnapLogic. If the Informatica job is completed, it would automatically trigger the SnapLogic pipeline. So it allows the usage of multiple tools. For DataOps and DevOps, it is quite important to use Control-M, as it is a scheduler which schedules multiple jobs based on our requirement. We can easily change the schedule for a particular day if we have a lesser number of data. And if there is any data miss, we can also easily reprocess using Control-M by putting a few jobs on hold and running the jobs manually. So I think it is quite extensively important to use Control-M for a Data Engineer at any level.

There are multiple teams which are using Control-M. I think there are nearly 80 to 90 employees who are using Control-M tool in my organization in my current project at Cognizant. Mostly, 60 to 70 percent of them are Data Engineers. Some are from the BI ETL, Business Intelligence ETL team, and some are from the DevOps team, and some are part of the development team also. And some are part of the Aloha Insight team. These are the teams which I know which are currently using Control-M.

I have been using Control-M to monitor and maintain pipelines. It helps us schedule jobs by linking them as predecessors and successors, ensuring the continuous flow of data without human interference. Control-M is the most used tool in my current project and is essential for job scheduling and checking job failures. Its easy interface makes it beginner-friendly.

Control-M's ability to link jobs from different tools such as SnapLogic, Informatica, and GCP DAGs enhances its functionality. The scheduler, ad hoc runs, and job linking features are particularly useful. It allows job connections to various tools and notifies us via email of any job failure, providing logs for quick rectification.

It can save us significant time, reducing errors and the time taken to rectify them. Automatic failure notifications enable rapid response, facilitating efficient job management. Control-M enables development on various platforms, which is essential for DataOps and DevOps operations.

Its user-friendly nature allows quick learning and management of tasks, with significant time savings compared to manual processes. We now receive automated failure notifications, which streamline error rectification and job reruns. Control-M's integration with Informatica and SnapLogic further exemplifies its efficiency.

One thing I find challenging is if a job is executing and we put it on hold, then if a job is an Informatica or SnapLogic job and we put it on hold, the corresponding pipeline in Informatica or SnapLogic would still be executing. We need to again go to that tool and kill the job. Rather, it would be easier if we kill the job in Control-M and it would automatically be killed in Informatica or SnapLogic.

In some cases, some jobs go into a waiting state. So again, we need to change the Control-M settings for that particular job manually to transform it into the normal flow. These are the two things that if they are changed, Control-M would be an even better tool.

I have been using Control-M for the past eight months since I joined Cognizant as a Data Engineer.

We have never experienced any licensing or any security issues from Control-M. My manager and the other members of my upper hierarchy manage the pricing. Since I have been using Control-M for the past almost one year, I have never experienced any security or software issues in it.

Control-M is easily scalable. I would rate it a nine out of ten when it comes to scalability of Control-M.

I have not used customer support until now, as the monitoring and the management of Control-M is done by another team. However, the other team which currently manages Control-M has helped us a lot.

When I was deployed into this project, Control-M was already in use, so I have not chosen or compared Control-M with other tools. Since I have been using it, I have not experienced any flaws or any issues.

For development, maintenance, and changing, I think around four to five people are enough for monitoring. For development, we need quite a lot of them. Once it is developed, only three to four people can easily manage Control-M.

I would recommend Control-M to most people. When it comes to metrics, I am not sure on how much the tool has saved us, but I am quite sure that it saved us a lot of time.

For scheduling, Control-M is the first tool which I have used. Along with Control-M, I am also using DAG monitoring, which is already enabled in GCP, which is almost similar to a scheduler.

We can easily depend on it to schedule the jobs and monitor them. I am already using it quite much for my daily tasks for my project. I am satisfied with the way I am using it and the features it is allowing me.

One thing is how easy it is to use. Anyone, if they open Control-M and look at the jobs, they can easily know how to run a job, how to kill a job, how to put it on hold, how to check the logs, when it started, when it ended, whether it is running fine, or if there are any anomalies in the job. So I would recommend it. I advise them that it is a good tool. I would rate this product an eight out of ten.

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.