We performed a comparison between AppWorx Workload Automation and Control-M based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AppWorx Workload Automation is highly praised for its ease of use, straightforwardness, and dependability. Control-M shines in its ability to handle file transfers efficiently, integrate seamlessly with other systems, provide Role-Based Administration, and facilitate collaboration.
AppWorx Workload Automation users desire improvements in API integration and better integration with other tools. Control-M users have a broader range of improvement requests, such as bug fixes, customization options, and integration with third-party tools.
Service and Support: AppWorx Workload Automation has been praised for its excellent customer service, particularly its highly-rated technical support. Control-M has received mixed feedback. Some customers appreciate the prompt and knowledgeable support team, while others have faced slower response times and a lack of proactivity.
Ease of Deployment: The initial setup for AppWorx Workload Automation may seem complex to those unfamiliar with the system, however, it is considered relatively easy and straightforward. It requires administrator access and involvement in deploying the system with databases. Control-M's initial setup is generally described as straightforward and easy. Users find it easy to understand the architecture and install the software. However, there is a learning curve and manual conversion of jobs and scripts, which adds complexity and time to the process.
Pricing: AppWorx Workload Automation's setup cost depends on the number of orchestrated systems, resulting in higher expenses. Control-M's pricing and licensing have received varying feedback, with some users considering it uncomplicated and clear, while others perceive it as perplexing and costly.
ROI: AppWorx Workload Automation does not provide detailed information about the return on investment. Control-M has demonstrated reduced expenses, increased productivity, automation, and improved workflows, making it a valuable choice for businesses.
Comparison Results: Control-M is the favored choice when comparing it to AppWorx Workload Automation. It is commended for its user-friendly interface, extensive capabilities in managing workflows and data pipelines, and valuable features including Managed File Transfer and Role-Based Administration. Users also value the helpful guides and videos provided by Control-M.
"It is an object-based approach to task and process design in conjunction with conditional logic and event-based scheduling actions, which enables a build once/use often design methodology to be employed."
"The solution is very user friendly so anyone can use it."
"We have a lot of nightly jobs that need to be run. Therefore, we perform a lot of calculations and processes during nighttime hours."
"The automated solution is the most valuable piece. Otherwise, we would have to be doing everything manually on every server."
"The interface is good."
"Scheduling is a good feature."
"It is really a robust product."
"It has improved my organization through automation of back office and infrastructure procedures, and by integrating and orchestrating key business applications spanning multiple technology stacks."
"The feature we use most in Control-M is related to the file transfer module. It is quite advanced compared to the other tools like Automate, etc. The new version which has come of same MFT has a lot of advanced features which makes it very easy to work with. There is less need for written programs and more GUI-based stuff."
"Before Control-M, we didn't have a centralized view and could not view what happened in the past to determine what will happen in the future. The Gantt view that we have in Control-M is like a project view. It is nice because we sometimes have some application maintenance that we need to do. So, in a single console, we can hold the jobs for the next hour or two. We can release that job when it is finished. This is a really nice feature that we didn't have before. It is something really simple, but we didn't previously have a console where we could say, "For the next two hours, what are the jobs that we will run? And, hold these jobs not to run." This is really important."
"If a job fails, that development team is notified right away, which improves reliability. Previously, it was on the operators to notify the developers that their job failed, erred, or aborted. Now, it's all automated."
"If they have ad hoc requirements, then they can theoretically schedule their own file transfers with the Self Service. We are trying to push as much work back to the customers or developers that have that requirement, because they prefer to help themselves, if possible. We try empowering them and enabling them through Control-M, especially for file transfers, because it is a much broader base of the business then just with batch scheduling. Typically, with SAP batch scheduling, it would work with dedicated teams. With file transfers, the entire business is involved. There are business users, end users, etc. It definitely needs to be as simple as possible and as managed as well as possible. They need to manage it themselves, if possible, because our team is not growing but the number of customers, applications, and jobs are growing. We need to hand back some of the responsibility to the customer for them to resolve and action it."
"BIM is helpful because we do not miss any SLAs, as we get to know the issue well in advance. It is the topmost service that has helped us provide better solutions for the business."
"The solution is innovative. Specifically for the overseas and time differences, you can feel the efficiency of Batch Impact Manager on jobs, batch processing, and impact management. It works the best on these kinds of issues. It saves us time and money, which is important. We save a lot using Control-M."
"The most valuable features are the Advanced File Transfer and the manage file transfer. They make transferring files securely seamless. It's very easy to set up, get deployed, and have it transferred to and from vendors. As long as we can get our firewall rules implemented at a decent time, it's very easy and seamless to get important files transferred in a secure manner."
"The File Watcher utility, cyclic jobs, and email alert notification are valuable."
"The graphical interface is pretty cool but not the best so it could use some improvement."
"It has been a deprecated product, because it is so old. There has been a couple of new solutions that are a little more advanced."
"It is difficult to integrate with the Active Directory (AD)."
"The internal security model can be complex when configuring multiple user groups."
"The scalability could improve."
"Reporting, forecasting and intelligence could be improved."
"It is not really scaling per say because they are not putting much into it. They are trying to push their new product."
"As a general process automation and integration tool, it has been superseded by other offerings, notably the Workload Automation suite."
"We did encounter a few scalability issues. Sometimes, there are too many jobs in our environment on different servers, but that’s not the tool issue, we can simply increase the FS size. However, that requires bank cost; hence the scalability issue."
"We've also had a few database bugs within our organization. I think we are migrating to OpenJDK rather than just regular Java and that has since shown some issues with our Control-M instance, timing out and causing our jobs to stop running. We are still working with BMC to fine-tune that and get that resolved."
"The reporting functionality needs a lot of work. We have faced problems with different versions where we run the right report, but it gives us blank entries. Then, when we run the same report again, it gives the correct data."
"After we complete FTP jobs, those FTP jobs will be cleared from the Control-M schedule after the noon refresh. So, I struggle to find out where those jobs are saved. Then, we need to request execution of the FTP jobs again. If there could be an option to show the logs, which have been previously completed, that would help us. I can find all other job logs from the server side, but FTP job logs. Maybe I am missing the feature, or if it is not there, it could be added."
"I'm not sure how the solution fits together with our business modernization initiatives, as there are things outside of my area, even though Control-M is the scheduling tool of the company. They may use other things, e.g., Big Data."
"Its installation can be better. Currently, we have to install it manually. The file transfer feature can also be improved. It is not very easy to transfer a file from business to business. In terms of new features, they can include new technologies. It can have API integration."
"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."
"The report form and display function are weak; they are not very powerful."
AppWorx Workload Automation is ranked 17th in Workload Automation with 7 reviews while Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews. AppWorx Workload Automation is rated 8.0, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AppWorx Workload Automation writes "The scheduling tool and finance module are valuable features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". AppWorx Workload Automation is most compared with Automic Workload Automation, AutoSys Workload Automation, Automic Automation Intelligence, Stonebranch and OpCon, whereas Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Automic Workload Automation. See our AppWorx 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.
