We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is #8 ranked solution in top Managed File Transfer (MFT) tools. IT Central Station users give BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer an average rating of 8 out of 10. BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is most commonly compared to AWS Transfer for SFTP: BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer vs AWS Transfer for SFTP. The top industry researching this solution is Computer Software Company, accounting for 33% of all views.
What is BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer?

Control-M Managed File Transfer enables you to intuitively build, schedule, and manage file transfers, just like any other batch job. Combining batch jobs and file transfers in a single system prevents data errors and job failures while improving visibility and control.

Buyer's Guide

Download the Managed File Transfer (MFT) Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: October 2021

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer Customers

British Sky Broadcasting

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer pricing:
  • "Its cost is high for small companies."

BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
MarkFrancome
Senior Systems Analyst at The Stamford Group
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Good alerting features send out immediate alerts when there is a problem

Pros and Cons

  • "The product works very well with the modules. If you have MFT, Managed File Transfer, or the old AFT, you can link that to processing jobs."
  • "The structure between the Control-M/Server and Control-M/Agent could possibly be improved."

What is our primary use case?

I'm a Control-M analyst and we use the product for a data warehouse, for secure bank payments, banking applications, an externally accessed economics database, database housekeeping and various housekeeping tasks. We use it across Windows and Unix in lots of different areas where we need to coordinate the platforms, and also areas where the jobs that are running are critical so that if there's a problem we can know if they're not running correctly.

How has it helped my organization?

MFT takes a lot of activity and gives us a central point of control. You can do a lot of these activities without Control-M, using bespoke scripts, but the overhead is huge and simple changes become a nightmare. Control-M gives us a standardized solution.

What is most valuable?

The product works very well with the modules. For example, if you have  MFT, Managed File Transfer, or the old AFT, you can link that to processing jobs. You can use other modules as well and sort of control them for SAP or various other products. The alerting is very good, so you can send out SMS messages or emails to people if there's a problem overnight and they get an immediate alert. It has many, many features and is also very flexible. If a user came along and said, "I don't want to use it the way you're doing it, I want to do something completely different," that would be possible as there are many different options of ways to use the product.

What needs improvement?

The structure between the Control-M/Server and Control-M/Agent could possibly be improved. It would also be helpful if the deployment of Control-M/Agent could be simplified. Sometimes you can spend a lot of your day just doing the maintenance work to keep the system running. So that's something that could be improved. I think they could also improve the basic engineering of the server. The product has been around for a long time now, it's 30 years old, so most of the big issues were fixed a long time ago. Any issues now are not serious. The API that they recently introduced is very good and lots of people are using that. It's really about development for the future, which means improving the API. 

I would go back to the API in terms of additional features, in that they should expand the possibilities of the API. Not everything is possible with the API, and you've got utilities in all the controlling systems that are very powerful, but they're not all opened up to the API yet. I think they should really just expand the API to catch up with the rest of the system. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using this product for about 20 years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's a stable solution, you very rarely get any serious outages. That's something they have improved a lot. Obviously it depends on the way people implement it. If the Control-M Server keeps falling over then that is obviously a problem but it will be an issue with the underlying platform itself, not Control-M. They have improved high availability now as part of Control-M, out of the box (if installed within certain parameters) so stability can be very good. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The product is scalable. The licensing can be an issue, some people have licenses based on the number of agents. If that's what you have then that can be a barrier to the scalability. I know sites that are running maybe a million jobs per day, even more than that, and they don't report any problems. So yes, it is very good.

How are customer service and technical support?

I don't often have to refer to the technical support because I know the product very well myself. Where I am located, they send us to Italy for support and Italian support is sometimes not so good. In general, there is a very good knowledge base on the product, and you can usually find your problem inside the BMC system or even on the website. So actually opening a ticket is almost a last resort option. 

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We used Cron and Windows Task Scheduler, i.e. the platform supplied solution. They are not the same as using a centralized scheduler but they don't pretend to be.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is very straightforward now, that's something they have improved. The installation is much better now and it's fairly simple. Basically you can download setup files and have the basic server installation done within maybe two hours. But if you want to use it correctly, the configuration is what takes you a long time and they should probably improve the documentation that they provide for administrators on that side. They have various programs where you can go and sign up as a new user, it's called the AMIGO program, and they will help you. They team you up with an existing user from another company and you can get advice with any problems you might be having. 

What about the implementation team?

We used in-house expertise.

What was our ROI?

The product paid for its initial cost within 6 months of purchase and repays its annual license fee within 8 weeks.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Sign up for BMC Software's AMIGO program (help for new installs and migrations) and go for the license where based on number of total tasks.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Yes, we tested $Universe, Tivoli Workload Scheduler and the solution from Tidal Software.

What other advice do I have?

The work is really on the configuration side. Installation is not a problem these days. Push it out as much as possible, to have a dedicated team and to decide that you're going to investigate enterprise completely and figure out where the automation will pay the quickest dividends because the return on investment is very quick on these kinds of products. Once you start to use them and you realize how useful they are, then you really make a big difference to the company and it can save a lot of money for many large organizations. Obviously there will be some situations where it doesn't make sense to use it because you're happy with your setup. But there are numerous elements of the business that would benefit that you might just have to get out to your users and ask how you can help improve the way day-to-day work is dealt with.

I would rate this product a nine out of 10. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
KN
Systems Engineer at a insurance company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 20
Nice dashboard with helpful alerting, but support for sending files needs to be implemented

Pros and Cons

  • "It has a nice dashboard for loading up the file transfers, so it's easy to follow the success or failure rates of the operations."
  • "Scalability is something that needs to be improved."

What is our primary use case?

The MFT product is for transferring files with external partners, and on-premises as well. We use it in both of these use cases. We're doing file transfer internally on our on-premises network, between sites or servers. Then, we also do that via a secure connection with an external partner or on a separate network. It is basically the same as file transfer over an FTP.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the integration with the workload automation solution.

It has a nice dashboard for loading up the file transfers, so it's easy to follow the success or failure rates of the operations. You get notified when transfers fail, which is an important feature.

What needs improvement?

At this time, you can receive file transfers but it is not possible to send them. Ideally, we also want to be able to send files using this solution.

Scalability is something that needs to be improved.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using BMC Managed File Transfer for about one year. It is a relatively new product. We have been using the larger Control-M workload Automation for close to 15 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

This is a stable solution.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

This solution is not very scalable. It can handle a lot of traffic very easily and I think that small to medium-sized businesses will have no problem with it. However, if you want to set it up in a highly available environment and you need multiple sites then these kinds of options are not yet supported.

In our company, there is only a team of a few people using this product. They are engineers and are responsible for the file transfer functionality.

How are customer service and technical support?

I have been in contact with BMC technical support, although it was for the workload automation tool and not specifically for the MFT product.

Technical support is responsive and I would rate our overall experience with them as moderate.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Prior to using this solution, we were using Axway B2Bi. We are still currently using it, alongside with the BMC MFT product.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward. It took perhaps a week to deploy.

What about the implementation team?

We did the deployment ourselves.

What other advice do I have?

This product is not feature-rich but it is a solid file-transfer solution. I would say that the features they have now are very good, although the product is not complete because you cannot send files.

I would recommend it but at the same time, I think that everybody needs to test it and see if it meets their needs. The supported features are very good but obviously, if there is a protocol or something else that you need that isn't supported then it will not be suitable.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC, IBM, Progress Software and others in Managed File Transfer (MFT). Updated: October 2021.
543,936 professionals have used our research since 2012.
AR
RPA-WLA BU DIRECTOR at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Easy to use, integrate, implement, and deliver

Pros and Cons

  • "Our customers find the self-service feature the most valuable. Control-M offers great value to businesses by providing an option to see different flows and control and orchestrate the sequence of the execution. It is easy to use and integrate with different solutions. It is a good solution that is easy to implement and deliver."
  • "Their support can be improved. I would like them to provide support in Spanish and have more knowledge."

What is our primary use case?

We use it for one-to-many and point-to-point security encryption. I started with version 6.2. After that, I used version 6.4, 7, 8, and 9. Currently, I am using version 9.20, which is a software as a service version. I deploy this solution on-premises and cloud.

What is most valuable?

Our customers find the self-service feature the most valuable. Control-M offers great value to businesses by providing an option to see different flows and control and orchestrate the sequence of the execution.

It is easy to use and integrate with different solutions. It is a good solution that is easy to implement and deliver.

What needs improvement?

Their support can be improved. I would like them to provide support in Spanish and have more knowledge.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with this solution for eight years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is stable. We haven't found any issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It has good scalability. Our clients are medium and big companies. Small companies cannot easily buy this solution because the cost is high.

How are customer service and technical support?

Their technical support is good. It is easy to consult them, and they provide a lot of information about the reason for the issue. I would rate them an eight out of ten. I would like them to provide support in Spanish and have more knowledge.

How was the initial setup?

It is very easy to set up. The deployment can take one to two months, but it depends on the number of tasks.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Its cost is high for small companies.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer a nine out of ten. Our clients are happy with this solution.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller