Control-M SaaS - Australia

My use case with Control-M is to handle scheduling and automation processes.

Control-M's best features are its reliability and user-friendly interface. Control-M has improved our organization by streamlining our workflow and increasing efficiency.

The areas that have room for improvement in Control-M are the user interface enhancements.

I have been using Control-M for more than 10 years in our organization.

I rate the stability of Control-M as an eight out of ten.

Regarding scalability, I rate it a nine out of ten.

I rate the technical support of Control-M as a seven out of ten.

I find it very difficult to quantify the return on investment I have seen with Control-M.

My thoughts on the pricing of Control-M lean towards it being expensive; I would rate it a ten out of ten as very expensive.

I compare Control-M favorably with other solutions and vendors in the market.

I find it easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for our DataOps and DevOps. Control-M is being used extensively across multiple departments in our organization. Approximately 100 users utilize Control-M in our organization. Control-M does require maintenance, and I would say it is complex in some aspects. My relationship with BMC is more transactional than transformative. My advice for others looking to implement Control-M would be to focus on improving their documentation and consider the challenges with add-on products like Workflow Insight, which does not have RBAC, making implementation difficult in organizations like ours.

Control-M provides automation workflows for the telecom environment. A specific example of how I use Control-M to automate workflows in my telecom environment includes application workflows such as billing, billing systems, infra setup, backup, storage, and requests, all of which are taken care of by Control-M.

With the 9.21 version of Control-M, I find quite good features with MFT and API integrations, as well as Azure and Kubernetes.

MFT has made the biggest difference for my team; it has been the main feature we are using as of now, with a lot of configurations with managed file transfer in place.

Having a secure file transfer is very crucial in today's world of cyber security threats; that is the additional part or the best functionality available with Control-M.

Control-M has positively impacted my organization by providing a platform to automate the workflows in complex environments while having data security in place, which has really helped the organization grow positively.

For Control-M to improve, the vendor support can be more improvised. If a solution is not existing, providing a patch for a vulnerability would be more helpful than always stating to move on to the higher version of the application.

I have been using Control-M for the past 13 years.

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is good.

Customer support is good.

We migrated from Autosys, CA Autosys to Control-M.

We switched to Control-M from Autosys because Control-M has better integration options and the GUI is far better.

My deployment took place around 14 years ago; it is a very old deployment that we are using, and we have been upgrading the system now and then.

The migration was smooth, so we were able to migrate on time and on budget without any disruptions.

We have around 1600 Control-M users in our organization for our particular license; the users vary from first level support to monitor jobs, some application users with browse access, and a few admin users.

A part of the admin team of Control-M, around 25 members, takes care of deployment and maintenance.

I do not have experience with the usage and investment calculations myself; however, discussing benefits, the employee count is reduced, and we can achieve quite a lot of FTE saving by having Control-M integrated.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing indicates that the pricing is on the higher side with respect to the license, but overall the tool is good.

We finalized Control-M without evaluating other options.

The biggest lesson I think I have learned from using Control-M is that the technology is vast, and we need to keep exploring, learning, and integrating more to ease out our life.

Control-M is used widely in our global environment; we have a licensing of around 75K, and currently, we do not plan to increase the usage.

I assess Control-M as a good tool for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows; it is important for my DataOps and DevOps initiatives, but I have not explored DevOps deeply.

I assess Control-M as a good platform tool for modernizing and transforming our business; it removes human dependencies for mundane tasks and eases out the workload, which is easily possible with Control-M.

It is very crucial to free up IT personnel to focus on essential operations; this allows them to focus on the latest technologies and also implement POCs for the latest technology integrated with Control-M, which ultimately helps optimize the complete workflows.

I would advise others looking into using Control-M to explore Control-M. I rate this product an 8 out of 10.

I am using Control-M mostly to automate banking jobs and monitor the jobs at the same time. Since I have been using it for the last year, it is mostly an operator's job as a Control-M operator. What I do is monitor the jobs, and if there is any job delay or job failure, we go through it. I use it to find where the problem is, why the job is failing, or why the job is getting delayed. Then I work with the application team to sort it out.

My favorite feature is in the web version, since I have been asked not to use the UI. In the web version, what I mostly appreciate is that when a job is waiting for any reason, whether a prerequisite is not met or the in-conditions are not satisfied, I can simply go to the waiting info section. There is an option where I can just click on it and I get to know every detail, such as why the job is waiting, whether the prerequisite jobs or the earlier jobs are executing or have failed. So in just one click, I get to know everything about that particular job, including why it is waiting and where the job flow is getting stuck. That is my favorite feature.

I heard that Control-M is going to discontinue the UI version. When I search for a job and ask for the neighbor jobs, such as the predecessors and the successors, it does not give a sequence; the jobs are not in sequence. I have to do some settings and navigate through multiple screens and clicks, and then I find out the information. If I could get the jobs in sequence by default, that would help me a lot in troubleshooting and understanding the job flow, particularly which job is going to run first and which job is going to run after that. This is the thing that I mostly do not appreciate.

I have been using Control-M for the last one year.

In the last year, I have never seen Control-M environment lagging or crashing. Sometimes some servers are down, which is a different matter, but I do not have any experience in the last year where Control-M was down. Failover is a different consideration.

Control-M might be scalable because I remember in April of this year, I attended a roadshow for Control-M and there were very new features, including AI integration. All these features have already been released in April of this year. Seeing those features in Control-M, the AI integration and how easy it has made the job is impressive. For example, in simple English, I can type it down in my environment and jobs get started. With the help of AI, I can make scripts, and if a rerun is required for any particular job, I can do that just by using very simple English language. I would say it is scalable.

I have used multiple tools, but nothing similar to Control-M. I have used Dynatrace, I have used Splunk, I have used SCOM, but nothing similar to Control-M.

It was not very difficult to learn how to use Control-M. It was something new for me, a totally new thing. It was not that difficult. I started learning things, and it hardly took me three months from scratch to understand how things are working in Control-M.

Control-M was already deployed when I joined and started working.

I primarily use Control-M for scheduling workload automation to ensure that jobs and schedules run according to the specified time and dependencies across different environments including Windows, UNIX, and SAP.

Multiple servers previously required jobs to run sequentially on a manual basis. Control-M provided a user interface where agents could be installed to run jobs sequentially rather than manually. Once the Windows job completed, the UNIX job ran, followed by the SAP job, and then the Windows job ran again.

Control-M's pipeline integrations are a valuable tool that is utilized on a daily basis.

Control-M's best features are the ease of scheduling, the user interface, and the ability to integrate with numerous tools.

The user interface is intuitive and the primary integration utilized is ServiceNow, which helps create incidents and establish a data pipeline between ServiceNow and Control-M.

Control-M has ensured that schedules and job batches run on time with no organizational impact or delays, including critical processes such as payroll.

Since implementing Control-M, a significant reduction has been noticed in billing process times. Billing processes that previously took approximately two hours are now completed within one hour, resulting in substantial savings of full-time equivalents.

Control-M pricing is on the higher end, and if the cost could be reduced, it would be beneficial.

I have been using Control-M for around two years.

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is strong, and the support for scaling is also strong. Scalability has not been an issue.

Support for Control-M is excellent.

IBM Tivoli was used previously before switching to Control-M, which provided a better solution and superior integration capabilities.

The deployment of Control-M took three months.

Two hundred fifty staff are required for deployment and maintenance, divided into teams at levels L1, L2, and L3. Some team members are responsible for monitoring, some for creation of new jobs, and others manage the administrative tasks of the controller.

A return on investment has been achieved. After deployment and product stabilization, staffing was reduced from thirty full-time equivalents to twenty full-time equivalents, resulting in a significant reduction. Additionally, because jobs have been streamlined, many manual processes have been automated, resulting in savings of approximately five hundred thousand pounds.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Control-M are good.

Other options were evaluated before choosing Control-M, including Redwood RunMyJobs.

Control-M support is excellent and the user interface is outstanding. For those seeking a stable and dominant tool in the market for scheduling and workload automation, Control-M is the recommended choice. This review has been given a rating of nine out of ten.

In day-to-day life, we are currently using Control-M as a workload automation tool, which provides the solution of scheduling jobs, file transfers, and cloud infrastructure jobs.

We use Control-M to get the start/stop status of a VM and to start or stop any VM with the help of Control-M and Azure VM plugins. We are also using Azure Functions and Azure Resource Group managers.

Control-M has a centralized GUI and includes many supportive plugins through cloud infrastructure and file transfer plugins.

One valuable feature is the centralized connection profile, which allows us to browse all connection profiles in a single point of view, despite a specific agent. We can browse through an EM level. The integrated Azure cloud profiles enable us to get the status of our VMs or to stop or start a specific VM without accessing the Azure portal.

Control-M has positively impacted our organization as we transition from legacy systems. We have configured around 70,000 jobs and are currently migrating all jobs from the legacy system to cloud infrastructure. Control-M helps us manage all file backup processes and batch process management, which people previously performed manually. By using Control-M, they are now able to perform these activities in an automated manner.

Control-M has definitely reduced the time required for job execution. Since we had 70,000 jobs that people were performing manually before Control-M, they are now specifically scheduled and available as on-demand jobs. They can run the jobs whenever they want, which has helped us reduce the time span and the manual efforts people spend on these tasks.

The configuration process could be improved as it is a lengthy, complex process. The installation might be simplified.

Additionally, the BMC support process might be streamlined. The complexity of the setup and the delayed support we receive from BMC are areas for improvement.

I have been using Control-M for seven years.

Control-M is stable. We are using the HA environment, so we are satisfied with the high availability.

In our organization, around 2,000 to 3,000 people are using Control-M, and they have many roles depending upon the application.

The BMC support process might be streamlined.

The configuration process could be improved as it is a lengthy, complex process. The installation might be simplified.

A total of 25 staff members are required for deployment and maintenance. In the organization, they are segregated as a manager, deputy manager, assistant manager, or senior supervisor.

I would suggest using Control-M because it provides vast capability with much more integration with cloud and native technology. Control-M should be considered by others looking for workload automation solutions.

The support requirements depend on the deployment capabilities. Whether it is a large deployment or a small deployment depends upon the deployment criteria and its size.

Since our company policy prevents us from using any external AI, I am not able to comment on its AI capability. We have not yet used Control-M AI, so for this reason we are not able to provide any comment on this functionality.

Some parts of Control-M are configured in a private cloud and some are in our on-premises environment. This constitutes a hybrid deployment. We have been using Control-M from the initial days. I would rate this solution a 7 overall.

I have been using Control-M on a daily basis. My main use case for Control-M is the scheduling of processing of jobs. A specific example of a job I schedule with Control-M is OS jobs that run a script for backup.

I use Control-M day-to-day mainly for database jobs, OS jobs, MFT jobs, file transfer jobs, and many more.

In my opinion, the best features Control-M offers are advanced scheduling and the processing of various processes at a scheduled time.

Control-M has impacted my organization positively by automating many of our daily based tasks. The automation has helped us as taking backup has become really easy; earlier, we used to do it manually, but now with the help of Control-M, we do it through automation.

Control-M is deployed in my organization on-premises. It is easy to integrate Control-M with other technologies. We have added AWS cloud as of now, and we are trying to move all of the infrastructure jobs to the cloud.

Control-M has improved the way my organization functions by mainly automating all the backups and database jobs that we used to do manually. The implementation of Control-M has had a great impact on business-critical applications as it provides clear monitoring and troubleshooting for business-critical jobs within the SLA.

Everything is good regarding improvements for Control-M. There is no need for additional improvements.

I have been working in my current field for seven months.

Control-M is stable.

Control-M's scalability is great.

The customer support is good. My experience with Control-M's customer support was good, and I would say it was helpful and responsive.

I previously used Autosys. Before using Control-M, my organization used Stonebranch because it was what we relied on for job scheduling and automation. I switched from Stonebranch to Control-M because it was hard to understand, the scheduling was difficult, and it had fewer integration options with technologies.

We directly chose Control-M without evaluating other options.

I have seen a return on investment with Control-M as we need fewer employees because it is really automated.

I think the forecast is a feature to consider. I assess Control-M for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows primarily through the Control-M GUI. The accuracy and reliability of Control-M's AI output are ninety percent accurate and reliable. My advice to others looking into using Control-M is to have it in their organization. I find this interview good and do not think any changes are needed for the future. I would rate Control-M a ten out of ten.

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.

I primarily use Control-M for scheduling jobs for scripts, batch scripts, and Linux scripts. Most of the writing involves service restarts on servers.

For data ops and DevOps processes, the requirement involves integration processes that need to be scheduled in Control-M, allowing management of cyclic processes for integration and continuous execution.

For building, scheduling, and managing production workflows, access is available through the URL or from the client software, Control-M Configuration Manager.

Control-M has made it easier to create workflows for both cloud and on-premises environments with features such as drag and drop functionality. This makes it simpler for users to create jobs and integrate them with dependent jobs.

Control-M has helped consolidate job scheduler tools with features such as SMS and mail capabilities, which other scheduler tools do not provide.

The best features of Control-M are particularly effective for Windows scripts and Windows servers, mainly for service restarts.

What is most appreciated about Control-M is that it is easy and reliable. Jobs that have been created can be accessed through the front end URL, where operations such as hold, release, and execution can be managed entirely from the user GUI front end.

Workflow orchestration is important for data ops and DevOps tasks as it makes scheduling scripts and managing various aspects of operations much easier through a single screen.

There are areas for improvement in Control-M as it carries some vulnerability points that could be fixed in any version, or it could be made easier for organizations to repeatedly install or update new patches with more stable versions.

I have been using Control-M for four years.

On a scale from one to ten, with ten being the best, Control-M's stability is assessed as a solid product at approximately eight or nine. BMC support provides robust backing, with new patches arriving daily and being integrated with previous versions to replace outdated updates and fix bugs while unlocking more features. No stability issues have been noticed during the four years of use.

Regarding scalability, based on the features and how they help with day-to-day tasks, Control-M can be considered scalable.

In terms of technical support, the focus involves creating scripts for service restarts on particular servers with the main target of providing support for automation services, automation management, job failure management, and managing the agent package and Control-M package.

The deployment of Control-M is easier than other tools. There are no critical tasks or activities required to deploy on the server; it simply involves setup and installation on the server with the tool ready to use immediately.

Regarding pricing, Control-M is not the cheaper option. License renewal is based on active jobs in a year, but it is cost effective. More features are provided compared to other tools at the same price.

When comparing Control-M with other solutions such as ActiveBatch, JAMS, and IBM, Control-M offers easier manageable operations for hold, release, and execution, which can be managed directly from its front-end URL. In its configuration tools where jobs are created, there are no difficulties encountered. Unlike other tools where dependency tools and jobs must be mentioned separately, Control-M provides direct drag and drop functionality with arrows. This is much easier than other tools such as IBM Task Scheduler or Jenkins.

Approximately 2,000 to 3,000 people use Control-M, including users from Axis Bank where all employees are using Control-M.

Control-M is recommended to other users by providing them a demo and showing them the uses, which helps them understand the benefits and features that Control-M provides that cannot be obtained from other tools. This allows them to rely on Control-M for their day-to-day tasks.

One point is deducted from the overall rating because Control-M carries some vulnerability points. The overall rating for Control-M is nine out of ten.