We performed a comparison between Control-M and OpenText Operations Orchestration 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."It has certainly helped speed things up."
"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 monitoring tool is very good. It's very easy for expert and entry-level users to use on short notice."
"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."
"The best part about this product is that it has a lot of features. Control-M doesn't limit us and we can use it for a lot of things."
"Self Service, BIM features are most valuable. As no need to login to EM client and check the job status."
"It is very easy to use. The HA feature is also very good."
"The initial setup is largely straightforward."
"The product is good functionality-wise. I am impressed with the tool's flexibility in customization."
"It's very stable. If you ask me for the success rate metrics, it's more than 90% for both."
"It has reduced the time taken to go to market. In the past, we were struggling with building these integrations, but now the process has sped up and there is an added advantage of quick delivery. In addition, it is an agent-less solution, which provides more flexibility in terms of multiple options."
"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."
"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."
"Their technicians should be more involved when we're applying new technology to Control-M, such as cloud. We're working with cloud right now, with AWS, and getting the attention of a technician, sometimes, can take some time. It would be nice if they had somebody assigned to it. Dedicated support."
"A developer sandbox could be very helpful to try out new features or experience them."
"We would recommend modernizing the look and feel of Control-M. They also need to move towards more self-service and development in their environment. It's very antiquated."
"The performance could be better. Control-M Enterprise Manager tends to slow the system down even on a server with a six-core processor and 32 gigabytes RAM. The console is Java-based, so maybe OpenJDK 16 or 17 would be a performance improvement."
"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."
"The report form and display function are weak; they are not very powerful."
"There were a lot of scalability issues that we initially faced. Whenever I tried to deploy 100-200 endpoints, it became a huge challenge. We had to actually start using other tools like Tivoli Endpoint Management in order to patch the issues."
"The tool's UI needs to be improved. It needs to have better administration features in future releases."
"The price is an area that should be addressed because the price is high."
More OpenText Operations Orchestration Pricing and Cost Advice →
Control-M is ranked 3rd in Process Automation with 110 reviews while OpenText Operations Orchestration is ranked 21st in Process Automation with 24 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while OpenText Operations Orchestration is rated 7.8. 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 OpenText Operations Orchestration writes "HP OO blows away the competition, but has its fair share of flaws". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, Automic Workload Automation and ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas OpenText Operations Orchestration is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Camunda, Microsoft System Center Orchestrator, BigFix and Appian. See our Control-M vs. OpenText Operations Orchestration 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.
