Control-M from BMC is a platform for integrating, automating, and orchestrating application and data workflows in production across complex hybrid technology ecosystems. It provides deep operational capabilities, delivering speed, scale, security, and governance.
Redwood RunMyJobs seemed impressive as well since it was also cross-platform, flexible, and versatile. However, we went with Control-M because it was less expensive and we were already using it on our mainframe environment. The distributed version of Control-M was much more …
We've not found another WLA software that provides the options to modify and create job types as Control-M does. Also, many of the standard functions are very useful.
Since IBM Workload Automation isn't compatible with all of our project's operating systems, we've decided to switch to using Control-C instead. Second, the provider provides top-notch customer service in the event of an emergency. Control-M is a lightweight program that places …
We prefer the Control-C over the IBM Workload Automation because it isn't supported on all available OS platforms in our project. Second, we are getting excellent customer support from the vendor in case of any critical issue comes in operations. Control-M is a light weight …
We use a suite of BMC software in which we use Control-M, Remedy, Bladelogic, Patrol/Perform. We selected and trusted them because they have worked so well for many years.
Verified User
Manager
Chose Control-M
Developers are more eager to use Control-M as it has bigger market share.
Manpower Inc. has used Control-M for more than a decade. In the past, Control-M offered broader controls, greater security and multi-system platform integration.
We still use them all depending on which datacenter you refer to. Little Rock is primarily an ASG (ZEKE) user but we also support CA (CA7). New Berlin used CA (ESP) but is in the process of converting over to Control-M as the data center is consolidated into the Milwaukee data …
More robust on all counts. Control-M has more flexibility, interfaces with more products and has the ability to create your own interface to products. The out of the box setup has you up and running on the same day. The ability for the use of agents and executing jobs agentless …
Control-M stacks well above. I definitely know that feature wise, [and based on the] stability of tool plus support in comparison to CA Workload Automation.
We moved from an in-house product to Control-M. Obviously an in-house product is going to be easier to use that something off the shelf because it was written for our environment. The problem was a team of analysts had to be maintained to support it which the company was unable …
The GUI is out-standing, very good compared to TWS or Autosys. It's fast and very reliable. The options such as: Alerts, Notifications, History, Reporting, made us select Control-M and not to forget the pricing, it's very competitive.
I have been using this product for so long and it works so well we have not had the need to evaluate other job schedulers. I have occasionally looked to see what was out there but I have seen anything so far that would require me to go so far as to evaluate the products.
Control-M provides true cross-platform integration without duplication, including service impact management. Control-M provides highly functional file transfer integration including pre and post processing command capabilities and centralised account management.
control-M was the best in class for batch jobs on mainframe and hence went for it - later on it was broadened to work on Unix as well and hence leveraged this functionality
We have had Control-M for over 20 years. At that time, we had been using CA-7 for 10 years and 100% of our production processing involved running batch on IBM-compatible mainframes. We evaluated Control-M, ZEKE, IBM, and one other product. While Control-M was the best of that …
I just started learning and using Skybot just one month month ago, and I see some terminology is similar to Control-V 8, I have worked on v6.3, 6.4 and now 8.
Well can't talk more about the differences but I found one good feature that is notification of calendar expiration, …
TWS was part of our initial proof of concept and product review. Control-M was able to do everything we asked. At the time TWS was unable to provide the interface that we needed. We chose Control-M and have been pleased ever since.
Control-M is well suited for complex hybrid environments that contain many different platforms. It can handle several other scripts and has many different plugins that make the application more flexible. It can be used on-premises, in the cloud, or various scenarios. It is reliable and has been a leader in the scheduler space for several decades.
Control-M provides a single, centralized interface for monitoring and managing all batch processes in the organization. Nothing is hidden or left unattended in a timely manner.
The proper use of the BIM component has allowed the change of paradigm in the operation, adopting a proactive management instead of the typical reactive management in the event of production failures.
The use of Forecast and production simulations allows you to identify bottlenecks and focus first on managing those failures that have the greatest impact on production SLAs.
Control-M/Change Manager has arrived to shorten development cycles from requirements gathering to production testing. It has been a utility that monetizes the development of Jobs meshes.
The GUI is capable of efficiently handling more than 80,000 jobs per day. This is certainly a challenge in designing a good user experience. I don't know if there is a reasonable limit to this. One of my clients runs more than 80,000 Jobs daily and the GUI remains smooth all the time.
Job-As-Code is a DevOps accelerator that has just begun to be adopted. Its implementation will make workload management even more cost-effective.
As with most of the mainframe software products, documentation seems to be the weak link for the products - written by people and for people who already know what they need to do, not for people who are trying to figure how to use the product.
We are a large JES3 mainframe shop. As with all vendors who still provide software for mainframe systems, software is generally designed and developed for JES2 and is frequently not fully tested in a JES3 environment before being shipped out.
It is a great product plain and simple. We've had Control-M for 20+ years and the support that BMC Software provides is really second to none. There is always a situation that someone can think of where I have to say, "No we can't do that", however I'm confident that we've been able to meet and most of the time exceed our end user expectations with what the product can offer them.
It's not perfect, but there's a lot to like about Control-M. What can sometimes be confusing is the difference between different menus in Control-M. Sometimes, you can clearly see that different parts were designed and added by separate development groups. This leads to similar functions and visuals looking a little different in menus, etc.
Although the product is very stable there have been a few incidents when I needed support. I have worked with technicians from all around the globe because of the rolling support. This gives me the quickest support when I need it most in those early hours of the morning. The technicians I have worked with have been very knowledgeable and if necessary got help when needed.
Since IBM Workload Automation isn't compatible with all of our project's operating systems, we've decided to switch to using Control-C instead. Second, the provider provides top-notch customer service in the event of an emergency. Control-M is a lightweight program that places few demands on the server's resources.
In terms of ROI, Control-M pays for itself within 12 months of purchase, sometimes sooner. Pointing this out to your fellow product qwners will not make you popular.
By automating repetitive tasks you free staff from these mundane and error-prone roles and allow them to be more productive. An example would be using the AFT module for file transfers. File transfer scripts tend to be in-house scripts that need maintaining. Using the AFT removes most of this overhead and allows for easy problem resolution.