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 really a robust product."
"Scheduling is a good feature."
"The interface is good."
"The most valuable features of AppWorx Workload Automation are simplicity and reliability. Additionally, they recently transformed the UI which is better."
"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."
"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 solution is very user friendly so anyone can use it."
"The automated solution is the most valuable piece. Otherwise, we would have to be doing everything manually on every server."
"Most valuable feature would be the ability to detect and notify when a process has not completed successfully."
"We used Control-M's Python Client and cloud data service integrations with AWS and, as a feature, it was very customizable. It gave us a lot of flexibility for customizing whatever data maneuver we wanted to do within a pipeline."
"The web interface is handy. It's easy to use, and Control-M provides you with the necessary materials to understand the features and perform various tasks."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting function. It allows us to pull up reports for specific information that the end-users are looking for."
"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."
"The solution has the power to reduce resources, which is good for business. It is constantly updated to remain compatible with new technologies such as Amazon, Azure, and Google Cloud. It's very easy to take advantage of the compatibilities."
"It is very easy to use. The HA feature is also very good."
"It is not really scaling per say because they are not putting much into it. They are trying to push their new product."
"The scalability could improve."
"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."
"We are looking for additional features that would allow us to call APIs and integrate the product with other tools more effectively."
"The graphical interface is pretty cool but not the best so it could use some improvement."
"The compliance features are limited to the server and not the entire infrastructure."
"It is difficult to integrate with the Active Directory (AD)."
"The internal security model can be complex when configuring multiple user groups."
"It is a very strong product, but the reporting could be better."
"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."
"I would like to see more audit report templates added, and perhaps more customizability in terms of reporting."
"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."
"The infrastructure could be improved."
"An issue we have run into in our lower environments is that Control-M can log you out frequently."
"The community and the networking that goes on within that community need improvement. We want to be able to reach out to an SME, and say, "Hey, we are doing it this way. Does that make sense?" Ideally, they come back. and say, "Yes, it does make sense to do it that way. However, if you want to do it this way, then it is a little more efficient." We understand that one solution framework doesn't fit everybody. Depending on the breadth of the data and how broad it is, you may have different models for one over the other."
"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."
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.
