Control-M Review

Good for Legacy Corporate Enterprise but Less Optimal for Modern Open Source Environments


What is our primary use case?

Our primary use cases for Control-M are scheduling, jobs, monitoring, and acting on job scheduling.

What is most valuable?

We value Control-M mainly for the ability to control multiple nodes in a coordinated manner. Control-M has the ability to really coordinate across a lot of nodes. That's the most valuable thing. 

Control-M is a mature tool with many features. It's pretty stable and very easy to learn. You can become an expert in it within a short time.

What needs improvement?

We would recommend modernizing the look and feel of Control-M. They also need to move towards more self-service and development in their environment. It's very antiquated. Opening up to more open source tools and switching the connectivity to additional tools would also be improvements. 

Most of the tools that are available with Control-M are antiquated. The self-service is currently not as function-rich as competitors. Control-M is not the best.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using Control-M for about two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Control-M is very scalable.

How are customer service and technical support?

Comtrol-M technical support is done through a local agent. We are in Israel, so the agent in Israel is the one giving it. It's adequate, not perfect. It's okay.

If you previously used a different solution, which one did you use and why did you switch?

Previously we used some collection of ad hoc tools. It was a consolidated solution, i.e. a single solution that was used across the board.

How was the initial setup?

The setup of Control-M is okay. It was done before my time by the vendor or a vendor agent. A third party authorized by the company itself helped with our implementation.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

This is the first time for us implementing the solutions using Control-M.

What other advice do I have?

We use Control-M with two administrators on average, sometimes three. With self-service, it's about 15 people who use the self-service option of it for end users, if not more.

I would like to suggest that Control-M implement a more modern way of using new tools. They should look at what they implement to determine if it is a legacy type or a batch type, then it would work better.

If they intend on moving to more modernized tools, then this approach might not be best for them. Control-M is really good for legacy, corporate enterprise but less optimal for modern, open source environments.

Overall, the main great improvements needed in Control-M is for better self-service. Give it more functionality for this self-service. The tool itself needs better out of the box connectivity to additional standard market tools.

I would rate Control-M at a seven or eight out of ten because it fits legacy stuff but once you're stepping into modern environments then you find yourself struggling. Control-M is a workhorse, but it's not 100% perfect.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Add a Comment
Guest
Sign Up with Email