We performed a comparison between Automic Automation Intelligence and Control-M based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Workload Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The tool's online manuals and documentation are good. Its user interface is user-friendly."
"The Action Packs are a good feature."
"The most valuable feature of Automic Automation Intelligence is the ability to see all of the batches from one place. Additionally, there is a multiple scheduler that is useful."
"BIM is a good tool to monitor SLAs, and being a financial organization, this is a very good feature for us."
"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."
"It provides a unified view where you can orchestrate and monitor all your application workloads and data pipelines. That's very important because with cloud, software as a service, edge computing, traditional data center, and legacy apps, there are all these environments. If you don't have that single pane of glass or that one place to look at, you're going to invest a lot of time and resources into tracking things down when they go wrong."
"It is simple to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines and to ingest data from different platforms. It integrates well between platforms."
"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."
"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."
"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 solution could benefit by having more connectors and customized widgets. Additionally, a dashboard that people could use for videos would be helpful."
"Integration of the solution could be improved."
"The job reporting feature needs improvement."
"The report form and display function are weak; they are not very powerful."
"The infrastructure could be improved."
"It has a slight issue with daylight savings time while advancing the clock in the Spring."
"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."
"I would like to see automatic license management. And probably more importantly, some kind of machine learning to help identify the optimum automation path."
"The MFT applications should have more functionality and flexibility within that tool. Having more flexibility with that tool for handling the one to many or many to one concept. Like being able to take data from one source and push it to many locations or pull data from many locations and bring it back into a single source. That's why we still use our TPS program for the file transfers just because we don't have some of those capabilities available to us within MFT."
"The unifying features between Control-M for different platforms needs improvement. The scheduling options on the Control-M mainframe jobs are different than they are on our Linux server. There are a few differences here and there."
"A developer sandbox could be very helpful to try out new features or experience them."
More Automic Automation Intelligence Pricing and Cost Advice →
Automic Automation Intelligence is ranked 19th in Workload Automation with 3 reviews while Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews. Automic Automation Intelligence is rated 8.6, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Automic Automation Intelligence writes "Useful multiple scheduler, centralized batch view, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". Automic Automation Intelligence is most compared with AppWorx Workload Automation, Redwood RunMyJobs, AutoSys Workload Automation and Automic Workload Automation, whereas Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, Automic Workload Automation and ESP Workload Automation Intelligence. See our Automic Automation Intelligence 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.
