We performed a comparison between Control-M and IBM Sterling File Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Self Service, BIM features are most valuable. As no need to login to EM client and check the job status."
"You can let users access the system and manage jobs: self-service."
"Self Service for repeatable, low impact workload automation processes."
"Control-M has helped us resolve issues 70% to 80% faster. It provides us with alerts instead of having someone go to that particular server and check the logs to determine where the issue is. We can simply click on the alert information, then everything is in front of us. This provides us with time savings, human effort savings, and process savings."
"Most valuable feature would be the ability to detect and notify when a process has not completed successfully."
"There is a batch monitoring tool called Batch Impact Manager, which proactively warns when processing is behind and SLAs are in jeopardy of being missed."
"The pressure on our operations and our maintenance has been reduced."
"Our data transfers have improved using Control-M processes, e.g., our monthly batches. When we used to do things manually, like copying files and reports, we used to take three to four days to complete a batch. However, with the automated file transfers and report sharing, we have been able to complete a batch within two and a half days and our reports are on time to users. So, 30% to 40% of the execution time has been saved."
"It offers easy utilization of resources for smooth transfers."
"Very high functionality with the ability to plug in your own code."
"I have found almost all the features valuable."
"The most valuable aspect is that it has good functionality."
"This product has been a leader in the field of secure file exchange."
"It's highly configurable, there is no need for standalone scripting."
"For installing or upgrading the PeopleSoft and SAP plugins, currently there is no way to do it via Control-M Configuration Manager. So, we are installing or upgrading the plugins, like PeopleSoft and SAP, manually. If BMC could provide an option via Control-M Configuration Manager to upgrade these plugins, it probably would reduce a lot of manual work as well as ease our work. This is one improvement that I personally want to see, because it would help our way of working."
"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 documentation could be improved, and I'd also like to see automatic upgrades."
"Integration with some applications and platforms is complex and requires development. We have done some integration with the application integrator, but it was more like a manual solution. This is an area that can be improved."
"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."
"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."
"Advanced File Transfer (AFT) has limitations that cause us to use a bit more licensing than we feel is appropriate."
"The next major release needs to focus on the lightweight web client."
"Not a ten because it's a bit complex, not so simple. It's one product but there are many screens."
"IBM is advising not to use the IT translate anymore but this is going to be an extra cost to the customer to use the alternative."
"I would like to see auto-deployment without service disruptions."
"Too many features; UI is not good."
"The API capabilities could be expanded to make integration more versatile."
"The admin console needs some work."
Control-M is ranked 2nd in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 110 reviews while IBM Sterling File Gateway is ranked 3rd in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 6 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while IBM Sterling File Gateway is rated 7.4. 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 Sterling File Gateway writes "Easy to use with good validation and monitoring of the file transfer". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, Automic Workload Automation and ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas IBM Sterling File Gateway is most compared with MOVEit, Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct, Aspera Managed File Transfer, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer and MessageWay. See our Control-M vs. IBM Sterling File Gateway report.
See our list of best Managed File Transfer (MFT) vendors.
We monitor all Managed File Transfer (MFT) 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.
