What is our primary use case?
We primarily use the solution for scheduling, including compiling for scheduling and financial scheduling across our countries.
We use the schedule for 19 African countries and also in the UK, on the Isle of Man, where our corporate business is done.
What is most valuable?
What Control-M offers at TWS that IBM Workload Scheduler doesn't offer becomes available with the next rollout of the software.
It's one of the top options on the market today. It's one of the better enterprise solutions.
The initial setup is largely straightforward.
The solution is stable and reliable.
There are lots of features you can add to the solution if you would like to.
What needs improvement?
I can't think of any features that are missing at this time. It's a pretty complete solution.
The licensing needs to be improved. It's a bit difficult right now.
You need to pay for extra features if you need them. Other options have them for free as part of their offering.
The product could be more affordable. Right now, we consider it to be expensive.
For how long have I used the solution?
I've used Control-M on the mainframe for about four years. I never certified under Control-M, so my experience on Control-M is far less than TWM, however, I am using Control-M currently.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The stability of the solution is very good. It's very reliable and the performance is good. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I'm not sure how the scalability works. I'm a bit confused by the process. I can't say for certain how easy or difficult it is to scale.
Likely 400 to 500 people are using the solution at this time.
How are customer service and technical support?
I only really deal with bank clients. Control-M handles the technical support. I don't deal with them directly and have no idea how technical support works or how helpful they are overall when it comes to troubleshooting issues.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I also have experience with IBM Workload and TWS. IBM Workload and Control-M products are extremely advanced. What is better between IBM Workload and Control-M, is that Control-M charges you for all your different features. When we go to IBM Workload Scheduler, you have plugins. Those plugins are free unless they were created by a third party. If the third party created them, there's a license fee that goes to the third party for the plugins. With IBM, as far as the product, everything is supplied. There are no additional options that you have to pay for. So you pay a single licensing fee and you get forecasting, simulation, your impact analysis.
How was the initial setup?
While the difficulty of the initial setup can vary, the implementation itself is pretty straightforward.
I'm not sure exactly how long the deployment takes.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The solution is quite expensive.
The solution does charge for extra features. If you want an impact manager you pay for that. If you want forecasting you pay for it. If want any of the functions of scheduling, you pay for each component separately. You also pay for agents. They do not give that as part of the product, so they're add-ons, which costs money.
What other advice do I have?
We are a customer and end-user.
We use the latest version of the solution. We try to stay on the most advanced option. It is deployed both on-premises and on the cloud. We also use various clouds, including public and private.
IBM Workload Scheduler and Control-M are far superior to any of the other products on the market.
In general, I'd recommend TWS or IBM Workload Scheduler to other organizations.
I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. It's a top-of-the-line product.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?