We performed a comparison between Control-M and IBM Workload Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Control-M offers several valuable features such as Managed File Transfer, credentials vault, integration capabilities, Role-Based Administration, file transfer integration, collaboration dashboard, reporting, workload archiving, and forecasting. IBM Workload Automation provides user-requested features, job triggering in multiple nodes, pre-scheduling, system stability, and efficient batch application management.
Based on the reviews, Control-M could enhance its microservices and API integration, fix bugs in the web interface, improve reporting capabilities, streamline the upgrade process, and integrate better with third-party tools. IBM Workload Automation could benefit from improvements in performance, job dependencies, stability, and integration with new technologies.
Service and Support: The customer service for Control-M has received both positive and negative feedback. Some customers appreciate the quick and knowledgeable support team, while others believe that support can be sluggish. IBM Workload Automation is renowned for its exceptional technical support, although there may be difficulties in pinpointing the origins of specific problems.
Ease of Deployment: Control-M is considered to be uncomplicated and easy to deploy, although there might be a learning curve. The duration of the setup can vary depending on the complexity involved. IBM Workload Automation may pose difficulties for users who are not familiar with IBM tools. However, with proper assistance, the setup becomes relatively simple. Additionally, agent-based installations can be deployed quickly.
Pricing: The cost of setting up Control-M is determined by the number of jobs or endpoints, which may be perplexing and costly for certain users. IBM Workload Automation's pricing is based on the customer's contract and switching to a per job license can lead to savings. The number of licenses needed for IBM Workload Automation can differ based on usage.
ROI: Control-M offers a notable return on investment due to its cost reduction, enhanced efficiency, automated batch scheduling, and decreased reliance on manual tasks. IBM Workload Automation's ROI is uncertain and necessitates additional investigation and analysis.
Comparison Results: Control-M is the preferred product when compared to IBM Workload Automation. Control-M is highly praised for its simple setup process, ease of maintenance, and efficient automation abilities. Users appreciate the Managed File Transfer feature, credentials vault, integration capabilities, and Role-Based Administration offered by Control-M. Additionally, Control-M provides valuable features like scheduling, easy configuration, and a user-friendly web interface.
"Control-M is excellent when it comes to building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows. Those workflows are of very high importance to our operations."
"Automation of the batch jobs is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"I think the administration part is much more valuable than any other feature."
"The multiple scheduling options allow you to do anything you want, whenever you want, and however you want. You can easily be in control when things happen."
"Speeds up processes and automated tasks."
"As soon as you have an issue, a ticket is created and the tech support is quite responsive."
"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."
"The support from Cisco is very good. I was with them as a company for 40 years"
"The whole product is valuable because it is a tool for batch automation."
"This solution has a request feature where users can request the added features they need to have developed. Based on client voting for those features, these are developed and released."
"The DWC, when configured correctly, is a great GUI tool to provide Self-Service Scheduling capabilities to the user community."
"The project we worked on involved the running of nearly 24,000 job instances in a single day, so I would say that the solution is stable."
"Technical support from IBM is very good."
"Jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Some of the features are not available. We were about to deploy the REST API, but we had some challenges. We had to use a third-party application. So, it should be improved in terms of integrating REST API jobs. That was something that was lacking. The customer was not that happy in terms of getting the desired output. So, we had to use a third-party application called Hangfire. We would like to have more videos on REST API integration, and we would like to have easy integration with the Control-M application through the REST API."
"The initial setup was complex, because I wasn't used to it."
"Finding documentation on the website can be a bit confusing."
"The Control-M API does not support SQL database-type jobs, where a job has been configured to use the SQL catalog to locate SSIS."
"We have some plug-ins like BOBJ, and we need a little improvement there. Other than that, it has been pretty good. I haven't seen any issues."
"I think it's slightly expensive but at the same time it's a good product."
"The biggest improvement they could have is better QA testing before releases come out the door."
"They really need to work on improving the web interface, as there are still a lot of bugs... In general, they need to do a lot of work on shoring up their testing and quality assurance. A lot of bugs seem to make it into the product."
"There should be more custom documentation, specifically around Java APIs. There should also be more training. In terms of features, we are currently using only 50% of its features. We don't use all features that are available, but there is always room for improvement in all of the tools."
"It would be helpful to have a mobile app that could be used to follow the job schedule."
"It should support other schedulers that aren't IBM products."
"The performance of the previous versions could be better."
"The configuration of IBM Workload Automation has some challenges. We have a difficult time customizing it, but it is similar to other solutions."
"Scalability-wise, it can be a little bit challenging."
"This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly."
"The schedule refreshes daily and that's a challenge for us."
Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews while IBM Workload Automation is ranked 13th in Workload Automation with 28 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while IBM Workload Automation is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Workload Automation writes "With an easy setup phase in place, agent-based installation can be done in minutes". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, Automic Workload Automation and Redwood RunMyJobs, whereas IBM Workload Automation is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, HCL Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Tidal by Redwood and BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager. See our Control-M vs. IBM Workload Automation 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.
