We performed a comparison between Camunda and Control-M based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Process Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Camunda is a scalable product."
"The number of client implementations and cross-language capabilities to support multiple frameworks is very pluggable compared to Pega. It's also more portable."
"I can use any other tools to create services and the UI, and then use them together with the Camunda BPMN engine."
"When I compare it with other BPM tools, like IBM, it is great, open source, and free when you use the community version."
"Ease of use and ability to streamline a process model."
"We have the ability to modify the product if we need to, and that comes in handy whenever we need to add new functionality and features."
"The UI is very user-friendly compared to other products. The native, vanilla UI is very interesting and intuitive to use. It's user-friendly when it comes to modernizing a business process."
"The product is stable."
"Self Service for repeatable, low impact workload automation processes."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The pressure on our operations and our maintenance has been reduced."
"Technical support is very helpful and available 24/7."
"The File Transfer component is quite valuable. The integration with products such as Informatica and SAP are very valuable to us as well. Rather than having to build our own interface into those products, we can use the ones that come out of the box. The integration with databases is valuable as well. We use database jobs quite a bit."
"The scheduling and management were really good. Monitoring was also better. It had a good visual presentation. It showed me charts and all such things. It was really good on that side."
"In our bank, all new applications need to be implemented with Control-M. We try to look for the best way to establish communication between both products. One of the new features for us is Application Integrator. It is a very interesting feature because it lets us integrate with those applications that are not included in Control-M. By using Application Integrator, we can easily integrate new technologies. With the help of Application Integrator, we recently integrated with Blue Prism, which is a robotic product. We could integrate such processes into Control-M. Now, we are working with Ansible, and we are putting Ansible automated processes into Control-M."
"The File Watcher utility, cyclic jobs, and email alert notification are valuable."
"There should be a multi-tenant solution for the platform where it supports multiple organizations on one platform instead of having to spin up multiple clusters for each organization. There should be an easy way to integrate different departments into one platform without having to operate multiple platforms. The operations should be easier with the enterprise solution. It should not create more overhead for the operations people."
"Customization and tech stack could be up-to-date."
"In the future, I would like to see better transactional integrity."
"When addressing a complex and extensive process, the domain it belongs to, be it banking, healthcare, or HR, requires widespread access."
"The migration strategy needs to be improved."
"Community support is basically what I'm looking for. Other than that, it is okay for now."
"If Camunda could develop something that creates user forms that would be a great feature to have. They also need to improve the UI."
"Process interfaces between diagrams could be improved."
"It can definitely expand promotions, so that a single job can be moved. Currently you can only promote a job by promoting the entire table."
"I think it's slightly expensive but at the same time it's a good product."
"Its architecture is old. AutoSys gives more flexibility."
"The stability of Control-M has Not been great. A big thing we've been trying to work on with BMC is observability. Modern applications should be observable and resilient, but we're finding that sometimes Control-M is not very resilient and many times Control-M is not very observable."
"The infrastructure updates could use improvement. Some of the previous updates that we have run to get to version nineteen were troublesome. So, a more seamless upgrade path for the infrastructure components would be useful. I don't know if they have replaced that in version 20 or if version 20 has an easier path, but I would like to see the upgrade from one version to the next version be a little smoother."
"The biggest improvement they could have is better QA testing before releases come out the door."
"Whenever I pull an S4HANA job to the Helix Control-M tool, it pulls it naturally with all the steps. A job can have several steps, and in this case, it is very easy to control the steps taken. However, in the case of the SaaS IBP tool, it can pull the job but cannot identify the steps. So, when I want to take an action in a step, I have to split the job."
"Regarding product design and R&D, the DevOps pipeline could be improved with better capabilities and automation. API security and authentication is another area that could use improvement; users must have static credential passwords, which is a security concern."
Camunda is ranked 1st in Process Automation with 71 reviews while Control-M is ranked 3rd in Process Automation with 110 reviews. Camunda is rated 8.2, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, Automic Workload Automation and ServiceNow Orchestration. See our Camunda vs. Control-M report.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Process 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.
