We performed a comparison between Autosys Workload Automation and Control-M based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: In this comparison, Control-M finishes ahead of Autosys Workload Automation. With Control-M, all documentation is available online; many users feel this is a big win. The solution is very stable in most environments and the solution is very easy to use. The consistent excellent 24/7 support is a benefit that really rounds out this amazing solution.
"Inherit Dependencies feature reduces scheduling errors for holiday processing."
"The CA workload agent has gotten much better. For our organization it's important for us to communicate in a secure fashion between the host and the other platforms, and we are able to do that with our CA product"
"We use technical support all the time. We would be lost without them. They're fantastic. Really good job. We're able to reach the right person to help us out right away."
"It can run an object on our Windows systems or our Unix systems, and then send messages to the other system when they are complete."
"The aggregator reporting utility which tells us our throughput in lag and latency."
"It scales very well. We can add jobs and remove jobs. We do not have problems maintaining the product across multiple environments and multiple servers."
"The solution has been stable."
"It is very valuable for us when we are trying to arrange or orchestrate jobs into a system. It is helpful for triggering jobs for a scheduled task."
"The integration with ServiceNow is good. When a job ends and there are problems with it, we automatically open an incident in this platform, and the number of the incident is forwarded to Control-M. This means that we have a record of it with the log of the job."
"The unified view where you can define, orchestrate, and monitor applications, workflows, and data pipelines is important because we have more than one team working on Control-M. We have a support team, a job-creation team, and a SAP team. We can all work together on it. It avoids anyone from working on his part and not using the latest modifications."
"It can do anything that I need. We do real-time jobs. We also do jobs that have to run at certain times. I have not been presented with a scheduling need that I was not able to do. It is very flexible and dynamic."
"Control-M provides us with a unified view, where we can easily define, orchestrate, and monitor all our application workflows and data pipelines. It also provides the ability to filter. So, if I don't want to see everything, I can also narrow it down or open ViewPoint. This is very important since we have thousands of jobs to monitor. If we did not have this ability, it would be very difficult to see what is going on."
"Promotions between environments, as well as local, mass update, versioning, and self-service."
"We are using Control-M for day-to-day operations only. It is helpful for us in our day-to-day operations. It is a key in our financial sector. We are automating via Control-M in our treasury operations, including any evening updates. Control-M makes things easier and faster by helping our treasury operations go without any interruptions."
"It has multiple features. You can plan your execution in Control-M. It provides one single window where you can define workflows regardless of geographic boundaries and platforms. A batch process can be executed from this single window. It provides insights into your processes. Your business people will know what process they are running and what is the state of the process. Instead of knowing that they're not going to meet the SLA the next morning, the business people immediately know the changes in their process. Control-M is very easy. I can tell a non-technical person that this is how it works, and he would be able to easily understand it. Business people can understand the methodology of Control-M and the intuitive features that it has. It has a fantastic graphical user interface and is easy to understand. You just have to drag and drop but in a very intuitive way. Monitoring features are also good. It has different color coding schemes, which can help you to understand the status of your workflow. An operator who is not that technical and is just monitoring the status of the application can see by color-coding the status of a process. If anything goes wrong or a process is stuck, it gives you a hint. You can just right-click and see the logs and the output. Even if the system is not right there in the data center and is located somewhere else, you can monitor it right from there and see the workflows."
"The monitoring tool is very good. It's very easy for expert and entry-level users to use on short notice."
"SQL server clustering is not supported."
"The graphical interface can be improved."
"They could do better supporting it. They have too many of the same type of products, so sometimes it doesn't get as much attention as it should."
"I would like to see the Service Orchestrator, a B2B product, and maybe a process audit."
"To make it a lot more user-friendly, in order to make it so other people can use it without having to do much training with it; the more user-friendly it is, the easier it is to work with."
"It would be helpful to be able to monitor and manage workload windows so we could minimize downstream applications. This would allow us easier access to the applications."
"I am looking forward to more of their dashboard features. I think it would be very valuable for us to have dashboard features that could be delivered to our customers in the form of a URL, and they could refresh that URL whenever they wanted to get up to date performance metrics out of our systems."
"Some support issues need to be addressed, but not through email, through personal contact via phone or WebEx."
"There is definitely room for improvement. Version 9.0.20 actually comes with a web-based interface, but there are still a lot of things unavailable with it. There will eventually be more inclusions added into the web interface, but there is still a long way to go."
"Control-M reporting is a bit of a pain point right now. Control-M doesn't have robust reporting. I would like to see better reporting options. I would like to be able to pull charts or statistics that look nicer. Right now, we can pull some data, but it is kind of choppy. It would be nicer to have enterprise-level reporting that you can present to managers."
"The high availability that comes from BMC with its supplied Postgres database is very limited. Even using your customer-supplied Postgres database is problematic. We have engaged with them regarding this, but it is difficult. My company doesn't want to do this and BMC doesn't want to do that. We just need to find some middle ground to get the proper high availability. We're also moving away, like the rest of the world, from the more expensive offerings, like Oracle. We are trying to use Postgres, which is free. The stability is good. It is just that the high availability configuration is not ideal. It could be better."
"A developer sandbox could be very helpful to try out new features or experience them."
"I would like not to have to reach out to a third-party application company to do automated notifications. Right now, we still have people manually calling people and emailing people. There's a company called xMatters - and there are others - that has an API through Control-M that can automate any aspect of failure management. I'd like to see it build right into the product. I'd like to see a better notification product."
"They can give more predefined plug-ins so that we don't have to create them."
"The next major release needs to focus on the lightweight web client."
"They can improve their interface."
AutoSys Workload Automation is ranked 6th in Workload Automation with 79 reviews while Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews. AutoSys Workload Automation is rated 8.4, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AutoSys Workload Automation writes "Helps us manage complex workloads, reduce our workload failure rates, and save us time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". AutoSys Workload Automation is most compared with IBM Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Stonebranch, Automic Workload Automation and CA 7 Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas Control-M is most compared with IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, Automic Workload Automation and Redwood RunMyJobs. See our AutoSys Workload Automation vs. Control-M report.
See our list of best Workload Automation vendors.
We monitor all Workload Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
