We performed a comparison between Automic Workload Automation and Control-M based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Control-M comes out on top in this comparison. It is a very innovative and feature-rich solution and can be used to complete many diverse tasks and solve different issues, resulting in significant time savings and cost-effectiveness. Automic Workload Automation requires a bit of a learning curve, and some users tell us the web version is missing many of the solution's best features.
"Support is good and it works fine."
"The solution's technical support has always been excellent."
"It's allowing us to increase our overall volumes of data that we're working with, without actually increasing the overall amount of team that we need to monitor it."
"Stability has been great. My team, we call ourselves "the invisibles" because things run so well that sometimes you almost feel like you have to try to break something to actually get acknowledged."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that we can control between a lot of operating systems and other products because we have a lot of old and new products in our environment. It helps us to control all of them together."
"The scalability is great."
"A good piece of software is like a good referee. If it's doing good, you don't notice it. That's the good thing about Automic. We don't even notice that it's there a lot of the time. It's a very, very stable product."
"We have seen improvements in time efficiency and cost resources, because we are mainly focused on the SAP area, and its automation in that part."
"We are using Control-M for day-to-day operations only. It is helpful for us in our day-to-day operations. It is a key in our financial sector. We are automating via Control-M in our treasury operations, including any evening updates. Control-M makes things easier and faster by helping our treasury operations go without any interruptions."
"Our ability to integrate with many different solutions has been invaluable. The new approach of the automation API and jobs-as-code is also valuable."
"Ability to handle files remotely through the advanced file transfer feature."
"First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate."
"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."
"It is an enterprise tool that integrates with all the applications in our organization. It has made our life easier because we don't need to wake up at midnight and do monitoring, etc. It does everything. It also sends precautionary alerts. If a job or activity is running for more than the specified time, it alerts the application team. So, our teams do not need to sit in front of a laptop or any open application to watch the jobs. They can do their other regular activities while Control-M takes care of all the jobs. It notifies them when there is job completion, delay, and error."
"Technical support is very helpful and available 24/7."
"The File Watcher utility, cyclic jobs, and email alert notification are valuable."
"There is one missing part in the product concerning recurring tasks. You can schedule a recurring task by a context action, and run it as recurrent, but it creates a time container which can be quit and disappears."
"I would not recommend using Automic's technical support for complex problems."
"The user interface could be a little more user-friendly, as it is not the best out there."
"They should work to reduce pricing."
"We would like to have token-based authentication. Where we do not have to use a password, and can use tokens for authentication in other systems."
"I would also like to see a little bit more connectivity, more, "Play nice with other toys." For instance, we have IServ as our primary tool for our service request tickets. In order for it to play nice with Automic, we had to actually create a file and put it somewhere, where Automic can see it. I would like to see more connectivity with other tools, or more compatibility with other tools."
"It seems still very technical to get the full features out... Once you get to some of the leadership levels, such as myself, you don't have time to go digging into it. It would be nice to have some additional performance features such as reporting, analytics."
"I would like to see the event engine in the next release."
"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."
"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."
"The next major release needs to focus on the lightweight web client."
"A lot of businesses are using ServiceNow, which is another tool. I would like there to be some integration with ServiceNow or other third-party tools as well as have easily available integrations. Right now, we need to write scripts. Apart from that, if there were some integrations with an ITSM tool, then that would be good. Because at the end of the day, most of our clients are using different ITSM tools. I know that BMC Remedy is easy to integrate with Control-M. However, if there was availability for Jira as well as other ITSM and DevOps tools, that would be a good improvement."
"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."
"The main area that could be improved would be documentation, just like every other software product out there!"
"The report form and display function are weak; they are not very powerful."
"Some of the documentation could use some improvement, however, it gets you from point A to point B pretty quickly to get the solution in place."
Automic Workload Automation is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 85 reviews while Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews. Automic Workload Automation is rated 8.2, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Automic Workload Automation writes "A tool requiring an easy setup phase that provides its users with flexibility and flow chart visibility ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". Automic Workload Automation is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Dollar Universe Workload Automation, AppWorx Workload Automation and IBM Workload Automation, whereas Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Redwood RunMyJobs. See our Automic 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.
