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.
"It is reliable. We have never had any unplanned crashes."
"The reason we went with Automic is very simple. We were using ESP, which was a Broadcom product. So, Automic happened to be a natural fit. It was a much easier transition from ESP to Automic. We had familiarity with the vendor and the product."
"It's easy to use. When you schedule jobs, if you can speak English you can schedule them easily and correctly. Also, there's a lot of flexibility because the product allows you to do many tasks, in multiple ways, so you can choose the way that works best for your environment."
"One of the big features that they did implement, that a lot of people, us included, were asking for for a long time, is the ability to do zero downtime upgrades. They have introduced that."
"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."
"Without automation, it would be nearly impossible to do all the jobs that we are doing."
"We impose some standards for backup and restore operations."
"The scalability is good because you can add on as many services and processes as you want."
"The most valuable features are the GUI console, stability, and workflow."
"The scheduling and management were really good. Monitoring was also better. It had a good visual presentation. It showed me charts and all such things. It was really good on that side."
"First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate."
"Control-M has helped to improve our data transfers because it allows us to monitor the execution of the process. With other technologies, we cannot do that."
"The ability to dynamically predict batch run time is so valuable."
"We have a better picture of our auditability. When someone comes to us, and asks for sources, "How did the deltas occur?" We can provide answers quickly, or at least quicker than what we used to. We are actually sure of the information that we provide, where before it was like, "Hmm, I think it comes from over there. Let me double check, but it gets really convoluted over here and I think that is where it comes from." Now, if it is within the Control-M environment, it has a straightforward answer that we can provide with confidence."
"The most valuable features are the Advanced File Transfer and the manage file transfer. They make transferring files securely seamless. It's very easy to set up, get deployed, and have it transferred to and from vendors. As long as we can get our firewall rules implemented at a decent time, it's very easy and seamless to get important files transferred in a secure manner."
"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."
"I am heading up the AWI. I desperately miss the possibility to show my read-only users on the Explorer side only their folders, not all the folders."
"Automic Workload Automation could improve the SaaS deployment."
"Documentation is not great. It was previously much better."
"The tool lacks interoperability features."
"Some of the things we don't do are mainly because we don't know how to do them. Hands-on training can be expensive, so we find other ways to work around things to forgo the hands-on training. It is also an issue because we are a Linux shop and most trainers are Windows-based."
"We would like to see more dashboarding into the product, maybe an embedded Java API which we would be able to load on our own."
"It is a bit of a problem, because they like to do email ping-pong via their web page. Sometimes, it would be much easier if someone would call you on the phone."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Regarding product design and R&D, the DevOps pipeline could be improved with better capabilities and automation. API security and authentication is another area that could use improvement; users must have static credential passwords, which is a security concern."
"Sometimes, with technical support, they will take feedback, but you don't know where that feedback goes or if it proceeds along in the thought process."
"I talked to Control-M guys back in October or November when they had a gathering here in Atlanta. We talked about not being able to go back in history in Helix Control-M for more than two weeks. We submitted a request for enhancement. They told us that they are working on it, and they are thinking of expanding that to 30 days. We would like to see it expand to 90 days, but they are working on it."
"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."
"They can improve their interface."
"The biggest improvement they could have is better QA testing before releases come out the door."
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.
