Overview

Product video
Control-M Managed File Transfer (MFT) is a Control-M add-on that uses FTP/SFTP client and server solution that enables you to watch and transfer files from a local host to a remote host, a remote host to a local host, or a remote host to another remote host. Control-M MFT uses industry standard protocols, such as FTP (based on RFC 959) and SFTP and does not require installation on remote computers "Price is per : 100 Tasks (of MFT Add-On License)
[Capacity for this add-on must match the total number of Control-M Platform Tasks Licenses. For example if you own 300 BMC Platform Licenses, than, you must purchase a total 300 of the add-on license]"
Control-M Managed File Transfer (MFT) is an FTP/SFTP client and server solution that enables you to watch and transfer files from a local host to a remote host, a remote host to a local host, or a remote host to another remote host. Control-M MFT uses industry standard protocols, such as FTP (based on RFC 959) and SFTP and does not require installation on remote computers "Price is per : 100 Tasks (of MFT Add-On License)
[Capacity for this add-on must match the total number of Control-M Platform Tasks Licenses. For example if you own 300 BMC Platform Licenses, than, you must purchase a total 300 of the add-on license]
Highlights
- Schedule and manage your file transfers securely and efficiently with Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) compliance and policy-driven processing rules
Details
Introducing multi-product solutions
You can now purchase comprehensive solutions tailored to use cases and industries.
Features and programs
Trust Center
Buyer guide

Financing for AWS Marketplace purchases
Pricing
Dimension | Cost/hour |
|---|---|
t3.2xlarge Recommended | $0.626 |
Vendor refund policy
We do not currently support refunds, All fees are non-refundable.
How can we make this page better?
Legal
Vendor terms and conditions
Content disclaimer
Delivery details
64-bit (x86) Amazon Machine Image (AMI)
Amazon Machine Image (AMI)
An AMI is a virtual image that provides the information required to launch an instance. Amazon EC2 (Elastic Compute Cloud) instances are virtual servers on which you can run your applications and workloads, offering varying combinations of CPU, memory, storage, and networking resources. You can launch as many instances from as many different AMIs as you need.
Additional details
Usage instructions
Control M Installation Products
-
Control-M v9.0.21 Platform Installation Description Control-M is a workload automation solution that enables you to automate the scheduling and processing of your business workflows across various platforms and applications from a single point of control Link: https://documents.bmc.com/supportu/9.0.21.000/en-US/Documentation/Introduction_to_Control-M_Installation.htm Installation File Type: ISO Install File Path: C:\Install\Control-M\Control-M.iso Link to the installation guide: https://documents.bmc.com/supportu/9.0.21.000/en-US/Documentation/Control-M_Server_installation.htm
-
Control-M Workload Archive Description Control-M Workload Archiving is a Control-M add-on that enables you to automatically archive job log and output data, from both Mainframe and Distributed systems, in a secure and central repository that is separate from the production environment. When Control-M/Server submits a job to run on an Agent, the Workload Archiving Server archives the job log and output in a separate PostgreSQL or Oracle database for a defined period based on Workload Archiving Policies Link: https://documents.bmc.com/supportu/9.0.21.000/en-US/Documentation/Control-M_Workload_Archiving_installation.htm Installation File Type: ZIP Install File Path: C:\Install\Control-M\ Control-M Archive.zip Link to the installation guide: https://documents.bmc.com/supportu/9.0.21.000/en-US/Documentation/Control-M_Workload_Archiving_installation.htm
-
Control-M Workload Change manager Description Control-M Workload Change Manager is a Control-M add-on, which enables you to do the following: In Control-M Workload Change Manager web application, application developers/analysts or the web users, can request changes to business job flows by creating and submit them as requests to a Control-M scheduler or check them in to the Control-M Database. These change requests are related to your Control-M definitions in Control-M. In Control-M, a Control-M Administrator can create standards to assist schedulers and web users in defining folders/jobs according to your organization's standards link: https://documents.bmc.com/supportu/9.0.21.000/en-US/Documentation/Control-M_Workload_Change_Manager_installation.htm Installation File Type: ZIP Install File Path: C:\Install\Control-M\ Control-M WCM.zip Link to the installation guide: https://documents.bmc.com/supportu/9.0.21.000/en-US/Documentation/Control-M_Workload_Change_Manager_installation.htm#Installi
-
Control-M Manage File Transfer Description Control-M Managed File Transfer (MFT) is an FTP/SFTP client and server solution that enables you to watch and transfer files from a local host to a remote host, a remote host to a local host, or a remote host to another remote host. Control-M MFT uses industry standard protocols, such as FTP (based on RFC 959) and SFTP and does not require installation on remote computers. Link: https://documents.bmc.com/supportu/9.0.21.000/en-US/Documentation/Control-M_Managed_File_Transfer_installation.htm Installation File Type: ZIP Install File Path: C:\Install\Control-M\ Control-M MFT.zip Link to the installation guide: https://documents.bmc.com/supportu/9.0.21.000/en-US/Documentation/Control-M_Managed_File_Transfer_installation.htm
Resources
Vendor resources
Support
Vendor support
support-matrix@matrix.co.il Fast-response support channel that is staffed 9x5 with experienced and technical support engineers, based on the SLA offered. (Production failure - up to 1 hour to respond)
AWS infrastructure support
AWS Support is a one-on-one, fast-response support channel that is staffed 24x7x365 with experienced and technical support engineers. The service helps customers of all sizes and technical abilities to successfully utilize the products and features provided by Amazon Web Services.
Similar products
Customer reviews
Automation has simplified complex scheduling and now runs high-volume daily workflows reliably
What is our primary use case?
Like any other batch scheduler, Control-M is what we're really using for the various workflows that we have to either do on a daily or hourly or whatever basis. We run them all through there.
What is most valuable?
I've worked with other ones, and I think the certain simplicity to how Control-M lets you set up a schedule or workflow is excellent. It's very easy to build everything together.
What needs improvement?
Most of my complaints have ever been with support for Control-M, not with the product itself. I can't really think of anything that I strongly dislike about the product.
Sometimes my gripes with the support relate to them being a little slow to get back on either a query or a problem issue. That's my biggest gripe on the support side. There are some people in the support area that are fantastic, and then there are others that feel like I'm being pushed off to the side. I don't know what's going on in the back shop, so I can't say for certain.
I'm currently fighting with support on one issue right now with Control-M, but it's not the overall product, it's just one sub-piece that's being problematic. It's the SAP interface with Control-M.
For how long have I used the solution?
My usage has definitely been more than ten years. I go back to release three or something.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I've never really seen much of a problem with scalability for Control-M. I'm sure there is an upper limit to how many agents and how many jobs you could run, but I haven't hit that yet. Where I am right now, we load probably about three thousand jobs a day, but we run a lot more than that because you can load a job and run it hundreds of times.
How are customer service and support?
I'm going to give Control-M's support an eight on the scale from one to ten, with ten being the highest. That rating is mostly because of the reasons I've already mentioned.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I've used plenty of alternatives for Control-M in the past. Though some of them don't exist anymore or they probably still do. One of my former employers was a big CA-7 shop on the mainframe side, and on the distributed side, I used the IBM tool Workload Scheduler.
How was the initial setup?
The setup for Control-M is not horrible. Once you get the server built out correctly initially, it installs relatively easily. There are some things in the update format that I don't favor. They used to have an update and migrate model, which would allow you to move from one system to a new system if you needed to upgrade your operating system or switch to a different platform. Going from Windows to Linux, or from SUSE Linux to RHEL Linux was easy to do. That migrate model was very good, but they went to an upgrade in place model. You can't do it that easily anymore because what you have to do is upgrade in place where you are and then build a new box and then move the data over, which is a bit of a pain. It was one-stop shopping previously. They stopped that at version 9.18.
The implementation is handled by me and maybe one other person who are specifically doing the deployment and maintenance of Control-M.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
I don't really have any thoughts about the pricing for Control-M. I don't deal with that, or I haven't in a very long time. I know one of the pricing models is based on workload, specifically how many tasks you load in a day. I don't know if there are any other pricing models other than that. That's the only one I'm familiar with.
What other advice do I have?
Control-M does require some maintenance on your end, as with any software. There are fix packs released or patches, and you need to be aware of that. BMC is very good about notifying you when they post out new patches or fix packs. It usually requires a downtime, but it's a very short downtime. It takes longer to take the product down than to apply the patch for Control-M. You have all the processes to shut down, apply the patch, and bring them all back up, and the up and down takes longer than the actual patch application sometimes. I would rate this review a nine out of ten.
Workflow automation has improved reliability but still needs built‑in scripting options
What is our primary use case?
Control-M involves various tasks in my operations, and how I use it enhances our operations significantly.
What is most valuable?
Control-M is a very robust solution. Control-M executes scripts outside of its platform and does not support scripting inside, unlike IBM advanced job scheduler. This enables efficient operations. The product is stable and robust, providing reliability in operations.
What needs improvement?
I have experience with another simpler solution from IBM called IBM advanced job scheduler. One aspect that the other solution executes better than Control-M is scripting language functionality. I cannot build any job directly in Control-M using a scripting language. I have to build my script in Perl or bash script outside of Control-M. I would prefer to insert or script or use any scripting language directly in Control-M and use more variables. I cannot perform that in Control-M currently.
If I could have any option to directly write a script in Control-M, that would be perfect. For example, if I want to use a scripting language, I want to take an action over a specific job. I would prefer to insert that job into an if clause for the temper, proceed with these other actions for example, or move this word to this value using a scripting language.
As a programming-oriented professional, I was looking for any interface where I could develop my job in order to take action. At first, it was difficult for me to change my mindset to the method that we are using in Control-M. We have a couple of change requests and a couple of things that are not possible to do with Control-M right now. Another aspect I honestly do not prefer about Control-M is that everything is an add-on and option, and I have to pay. For example, we have Control-M inside and Control-M archiving. In order to extend the log retention in my product, I have to pay more to install another add-on or another option for Control-M archiving.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working in my current field overall since 2023 as a professional.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Control-M is very stable for us and very robust.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
In terms of reliability, I would give it a ten. For scalability, I would give maybe an eight or something in that range. With Control-M, I have to write a lot of code in the other system. If I want to do something, I need to change and adjust my integration with Control-M. I have to change a lot of things. That affects the scalability of the product. If I want to integrate a new system, I rate that a seven.
How are customer service and support?
We are using our first contact with our vendor. We usually do not contact Control-M directly or BMC directly because we have another service provider which is a vendor of Control-M, and they open the tickets with Control-M most of the time. I notice sometimes the support is a bit slow, but it is good. I do not have any concern regarding that issue. I would rate the support an eight.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
The other solution I think is HP orchestrator or something in that area. I also have experience with Broadcom or Redwood or something from that company.
How was the initial setup?
The initial deployment when I first started using Control-M was difficult for me.
What about the implementation team?
I am the client, and we are using another vendor to buy the license. I am part of the client organization.
What other advice do I have?
Control-M does not sell any perpetual licenses right now. I have to constantly renew my contract as a software subscription license. I think the pricing is a little high, but the solution is very robust and stable. I mean, I am paying for a Mercedes and I am getting a Mercedes. My overall rating for Control-M out of ten for the solution overall is a seven. It is pricey, but it is stable. On the other hand, I have to work a lot to adapt my software to run with Control-M.
Unified scheduling has simplified complex enterprise processes and has reduced operational silos
What is our primary use case?
We are a service provider company using Control-M for implementation for other companies and our customers. We are a partner of BMC and work closely with our SIs, direct customers, and BMC. We operate as a reseller, partner, and service provider, offering both services and professional services.
When we enter the environment of any customer using Control-M , we understand their processes, how they are performing them manually or with other tools they are using. We gain a deep understanding of what processes they are running, what manual interventions are required, and what notifications or automation is needed. Accordingly, from the Control-M perspective, it is very easy to translate these processes into Control-M jobs. Control-M jobs have advanced-level scheduling options available, and we can create multiple dependencies in multiple ways. This makes it very helpful to schedule jobs, configure jobs, and monitor jobs.
What is most valuable?
From a single control panel in Control-M, we can control all enterprise-level processes. We can administer, monitor, and control all processes, which is the basic feature of Control-M. Beyond that, we have MFT and multiple integrations available. We can control each data pipeline with no limit from the enterprise level and no limit on integrations because BMC continues to add out-of-the-box integrations. If any customized integration is required for any application, we can use the Automation API and create the jobs.
Control-M makes this very easy. Out-of-the-box integrations and Control-M modules are available through which we can connect to DataOps and data pipelines.
Every application in any organization uses multiple applications. In the enterprise-level companies where we work with customers, they are running hundreds of applications. Each application has its own scheduler. For example, MS SQL application has its own scheduler, SAP application has its own scheduler. For normal scripts or processes, you have cron jobs on Linux systems and task scheduler on Windows systems. These schedulers are sufficient to run their processes in themselves, but they operate in silos. Control-M helps in bringing these different silos and platforms onto a single console where we can configure, monitor, and control all enterprise-level applications in a single platform. You do not need to have multiple application schedulers and teams to manage these applications in silos separately. A single Control-M monitoring team can monitor all application operations, which drastically reduces operational cost.
What needs improvement?
In one project where we migrated from JAMS Workload Automation to Control-M SaaS, I saw that application had a workflow designer on the left panel where you could drag and drop each logic piece and it would be created in their system. That feature is something I would like to see in Control-M.
Control-M is on the costlier side. When we try to sell it, it should be to a large enterprise company where they have a budget for automation. Otherwise, small companies use their in-house automation scripts to run their small jobs and do not want to invest in this costly product. It depends on the volume of jobs and the size and scale of the organization. Control-M is only applicable when it is suitable for them.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Control-M for almost ten years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I rate the stability of Control-M as nine. I am leaving one point just for the scope of improvement. Otherwise, I have never seen any instability in the platform in my ten years.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Scalability with Control-M is again nine. I am leaving one point just for the scope of improvement. Otherwise, I have never seen any instability in the platform in my ten years.
How are customer service and support?
I rate the technical support of Control-M as seven out of ten.
Whenever we contact BMC support for Control-M, they ask for logs and then take their own time to analyze them. They have software that does the analysis for logs and provides the output, but the time they take to analyze these things can be painful when trying to close open issues. We are working in the customer environment and the customer expects issues to be closed as early as possible. Sometimes it depends on BMC and it takes time. The turnaround time should be minimized.
How was the initial setup?
Control-M has a simple setup. You just need to understand the process. It is based on the logic of the process which is running in the back end. If you understand the logic, then it is very easy to create in Control-M.
The ease of setup depends on the team working on it. If you have the expertise, it is easy; otherwise it will be complex.
What about the implementation team?
We have a team of twenty people working on BMC products including Control-M.
Our relationship with BMC is both transformative and transactional. For the transactional purpose, we work as a reseller selling their licenses. From the transformation perspective, we provide services for consultation and implementation, and we conduct POCs for them.
What other advice do I have?
I will absolutely recommend Control-M. I rate Control-M as nine out of ten from a product perspective, and I give this review an overall rating of nine.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Centralized orchestration has transformed complex workflows and now ensures reliable SLA compliance
What is our primary use case?
I have been using Control-M for more than five years. Our main use case for Control-M is using it to automate, orchestrate, and monitor our complex business workflows across multiple applications, servers, databases, cloud platforms, and data pipelines from a single platform.
We are using Control-M for batch processing where we are running end to end of our transactions or any kind of report generation. We are also using it for data pipeline orchestration by extracting data from ERP or from other solutions to transform and load into our warehouses or getting the data directly from our Power BI environments. The third use case is for application workflow automation where we are executing workflows involving our servers, APIs, and custom applications in the correct sequence.
We are also using it for IT operations automation by scheduling backups, system maintenance, log cleanup, patching, and health checks regularly.
It is also being used for SLA monitoring and for our cloud and hybrid workloads because we are coordinating jobs across our multiple cloud providers such as Azure , Google Cloud , and AWS , as well as for on-premises infrastructure. It also tracks our critical jobs against deadlines and sends alerts or escalates if they are delayed or there is any failure.
What is most valuable?
Control-M offers several best features that are widely available in the market, and it has very large areas of strength. It has an excellent orchestration feature where for any job failure or any kind of notification triggers, it instantly notifies all the users. It has a very huge integration ecosystem where you can integrate any kind of third party application or your legacy application such as SAP, Informatica, Oracle, Azure , DataBricks, or anything else.
It is also providing central visibility so that our operation teams can monitor thousands of jobs from one dashboard. It provides benefits such as SLA tracking, failure analysis, audit trails, historical executions, and business service monitoring. It is also very helpful for our enterprise governance because it provides governance mechanisms such as Role Based Access Control, audit logs, compliance, and approval workflows.
We are using integrations through the APIs, integrating our SAP, Snowflake , AWS , Azure, or DataBricks directly with Control-M so that we are getting information from very truthful sources. It has a very large integration mechanism, so we do not have to worry about whether the application is working or not. We have peace of mind on our end.
One of the great things about Control-M is that it has a very large community base across the globe. If you need help at any moment, you can easily reach out to the community groups and the community members, and the support system is also very excellent, so you do not worry about who to contact about small things or any kind of complex related issues. You can get help at any moment of time.
What needs improvement?
Even though Control-M is considered a market leader, there are several areas where customers find they want improvements. A simpler user interface is the highest priority. Many users or team members have provided feedback that creating and managing workflows could be more intuitive. Potential improvements could be a modern drag-and-drop workflow designer, easier job configurations with fewer clicks for common tasks, and better dashboards for non-technical users. Introducing AI-powered operations would also be beneficial.
Control-M offers automation, but AI capabilities could go further, providing better cloud networking experiences, easier integrations, enhanced analytics, lower licensing complexity, and faster troubleshooting would make it more beneficial for enterprises. Stronger AI governance and improved DevOps support can be added in some parts.
Control-M has AI capabilities, but regarding AI governance, future capabilities could include features such as AI-generated workflow recommendations, policy-based approvals, explainable automation decisions, and risk scoring for critical workflows. That would be beneficial for the enterprise.
Cost control improvements in customer support and better UI, business process visibility, some features such as digital twins for workflows, autonomous self-healing, and intelligent resource optimization are a few other needed improvements.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working in my current field for more than 15 years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Control-M is stable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Control-M's scalability is also stable.
How are customer service and support?
Customer support is good. I would rate it nine out of 10.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We have evaluated and used different solutions previously. In my experience, I have seen tools such as Windows Task Scheduler, Broadcom Automic, Stonebranch , and Redwood RunMyJobs . We switched because we found Control-M to be more powerful and more useful according to our organizational requirements.
How was the initial setup?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is moderate. Control-M is positioned as a premium enterprise solution, so the pricing is generally on the higher side compared to open-source schedulers or simpler workload automation tools. The initial setup cost is high because it generally includes licensing, infrastructure, and implementation services. Although the licensing is comprehensive, it can be complex depending on factors such as the number of environments and agent modules you are leveraging. I would rate the pricing competitiveness as six out of 10, licensing as seven out of 10, and ROI for large enterprises such as us as nine out of 10. The value for buying Control-M is between 8.5 to 9 out of 10.
What was our ROI?
The time saved is about 22 to 25 percent. The return on investment is overall nine out of 10, and Control-M saves money on human efforts by 35 to 40 percent, reducing our overall headcount.
It has returned the investment that we have because it has all the features that any organization requires. For example, it has automated orchestration features, higher operational efficiency, provides business benefits, reduces our downtime, enables faster processing, offers greater reliability, and improves visibility across our organization by using a central dashboard for monitoring jobs for any kind of status failures and SLAs. It also helps with our regulatory compliance, scalability, and business continuity areas.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
Broadcom Automic and Stonebranch are a few of the options we evaluated.
What other advice do I have?
The biggest lesson I learned from using this solution is that Control-M is my favorite. The biggest lesson is that workflow orchestration is much more than scheduling jobs. It is about managing dependencies, handling failures gracefully, ensuring SLA compliance, and providing end-to-end visibility into business processes. As environments become more distributed across cloud and on-premises systems, centralized orchestration becomes increasingly important.
Control-M is very helpful for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring our workflows. It is a very mature, highly reliable platform that performs particularly well in large enterprise environments with complex and business-critical operations. For managing workflows, it offers centralized administration, role-based access, workload prioritization, audit trails, and lifecycle management. This helps standardize operations across multiple teams, environments, and geographic locations.
It reduces our manual efforts and operational errors by 30 to 35 percent. It provides a unique and centralized dashboard for better visibility into workflow execution, which again helps us reduce our manual efforts by 25 percent. It provides faster incident detection and recovery and manages our incident responses by 25 percent. It improves compliance and auditability by 12 percent and enables easier management of hybrid cloud and on-premises workloads, resulting in improvements of about 15 to 20 percent.
Integrating Control-M with technologies for our DataOps and DevOps processes is moderate. I would rate it seven out of 10. Control-M provides a broad set of out-of-the-box integrations and APIs for enterprise technologies. In our environment, we have integrated Control-M with technologies such as SQL databases, cloud services deployed in AWS and Azure, REST APIs, Kubernetes , and enterprise data platforms. These integrations enable us to orchestrate end-to-end workflows from data ingestion through processing and reporting while improving our overall visibility and reducing manual intervention. Our technology landscape involves containerized applications, cloud-native workloads, CI/CD applications, pipelines, and API-driven services. We ultimately reduce our reliance on legacy batch scripts and manual scheduling tools by consolidating all workloads into Control-M. This centralized approach improves governance, standardizes scheduling, simplifies monitoring, and strengthens SLA management.
For building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows, I would rate Control-M nine out of 10 because it helps us in all these areas. It is one of the most natural enterprise workflow automation platforms, particularly for organizations running complex business-critical processes across hybrid environments. Workflow orchestration is extremely important to both DataOps and DevOps initiatives because it ensures that the data pipeline executes in the correct sequence, and data is available on time for downstream analytics and reporting to remain reliable. The biggest business value is reliability because instead of managing hundreds or thousands of independent jobs, organizations gain end-to-end visibility, automated failure handling, SLA tracking, and governance, which ultimately reduces operational risk, improves productivity, and helps ensure critical business processes are completed on time. I would highly recommend this solution to prospective buyers. I have given this review an overall rating of 10 out of 10.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Workflow orchestration has improved document digitization and still needs better integration options
What is our primary use case?
We are a system integrator specializing in document digitization and DMS applications, and we encounter various workflows within documents and data. I have been using Control-M for less than one year, primarily on workflow process applications where we work with clients on digitizing backlog conversion projects. We use it when there are complex structured documents with AI-enabled workflows. We encountered this orchestration platform where we need to work across documents and applications to integrate whenever there is a critical business workflow.
What is most valuable?
The best features of Control-M are the seamless and simple process that any business user can understand and adapt to. Control-M also provides low-code and no-code capabilities that allow business users to work on workflow orchestration in a straightforward manner.
I assess Control-M as having ease of use and being simple to deploy and configure at a business level. When workflows are structured, it appears simpler and easier to create and integrate data pipelines for on-premises and cloud environments. For complex workflows, we need to fine-tune and understand the system before deployment.
Control-M currently saves approximately 15 to 20% of time compared to our previous support system.
What needs improvement?
The areas that have room for improvement for Control-M include integration and different data structures. Additionally, whether the deployment is on-premises or hybrid requires careful consideration. Both applications we worked on were on-premises, and we did not work on any cloud applications. The challenge regarding latency and other connectivity integration will likely be a key challenge for Control-M, and understanding how this will impact ease of use and deployment will be important.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Control-M for less than one year, primarily on workflow process applications where we work with clients on digitizing backlog conversion projects. We use it when there are complex structured documents with AI-enabled workflows. We encountered this orchestration platform where we need to work across documents and applications to integrate whenever there is a critical business workflow.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I rate the stability of Control-M as seven. I rate it a seven because it is still in the initial phase. We need to deploy other workflows and observe how the application scales and how the stability of the whole application with an increased number of users deployed across different locations will perform.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I rate the scalability of Control-M as eight.
How are customer service and support?
I rate the technical support of Control-M as a seven on a scale of one to ten.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I did not migrate from Broadcom, CA, or Redwood because this was a straightforward implementation of the application from the start.
How was the initial setup?
I did not encounter any challenges with Control-M or with the deployment process because this was just an initial starter pack to begin with. It was a small project and was straightforward.
It is difficult to assess how easy or difficult it is to integrate Control-M for our DevOps and DataOps processes because we have not done any integration. It was a standalone use of the application. Our scope was limited and we have not encountered the integration part.
What about the implementation team?
We had only one specialist working with Control-M, and we hired third-party resources to work on the project.
What was our ROI?
Resource-wise, we have realized approximately 20% value from Control-M, but financially, it is premature to assess regarding ROI.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Regarding the pricing of Control-M, I believe it looks competitive compared to other vendors. Whether it is a SaaS application or an on-premises application varies, and they have different structures such as a starter pack or a value pack. We went with the starter pack.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
I cannot compare Control-M with other solutions or vendors because this request came from the end user, so I cannot provide live feedback.
What other advice do I have?
Currently, we do not use Control-M to orchestrate workloads across multiple environments; all usage is on-premises.
I have not used the Control-M Python client or API because no API was within our scope, so I cannot comment with any correct feedback.