We performed a comparison between ActiveBatch by Redwood and BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."ActiveBatch helped us automate and schedule routine tasks such as data backups, file transfers, database updates, and report generation, which frees IT staff to focus on other studies."
"The REST API adapters and native integrations for integrating and orchestrating the software stack are very flexible."
"For developers, it is easy to orchestrate the workflows and the integration has been very easy."
"Using this tool, if there are any huge failures, we immediately get an email notification, and the proper team will be informed, at which time they can act accordingly."
"ActiveBatch provides summary reports and logs for further analysis and improvements in monitoring servers, which is very handy."
"It can connect to a number of third-party/legacy systems."
"Easy to configure and simple to develop new features."
"From a scheduling point of view, it is pretty good."
"The solution supports all file transfers."
"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 I like best about BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is that it makes transfers more secure and faster. It has a recovery feature during failed file transfers."
"It saves a lot of time for maintenance."
"It is a highly scalable solution...I rate the product's initial setup a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy."
"The job scheduling and file transfer are two major, important features."
"The solution is stable."
"The file transfer, database, and integration features are the most valuable."
"One thing I've noticed is that navigation can be difficult unless you are familiar with the structure that we have in place. If someone else had to look at our ActiveBatch console and find a job, they might not know where to find it."
"The interface is not that user-friendly and is a little tough to navigate."
"ActiveBatch is a little complex."
"The user interface can be improved so that it is more appealing and accessible to new users."
"They have some crucial design flaws within the console that still need to be worked out because it is not working exactly how we hoped to see it, e.g., just some minor things where when you hit the save button, then all of a sudden all your job's library items collapse. Then, in order to continue on with your testing, you have to open those back up. I have taken that to them, and they are like, "Yep. We know about it. We know we have some enhancements that need to be taken care of. We have more developers now." They are working towards taking the minor things that annoy us, resolving them, and getting them fixed."
"They should offer pricing that is more affordable."
"There is this back and forth, where ActiveBatch says, "Your Oracle people should be dealing with this," and Oracle people say, "No, we don't know anything about ActiveBatch." Then, it all falls back on me as to what happens. Nobody is taking responsibility. This is the biggest failing for ActiveBatch."
"Setting up the software was hard."
"We'd like it to be easier to maintain the administrative side."
"The structure between the Control-M/Server and Control-M/Agent could possibly be improved."
"This solution could be improved by making it possible to better control GUI when interfacing with other systems."
"Scalability is something that needs to be improved."
"There are eight different kinds of dashboards in Workflow Insights, but there could be more because there is third party software that provides more dashboard styles."
"Their support can be improved. I would like them to provide support in Spanish and have more knowledge."
"The solution should improve the out-of-the box conversion tool for migrations so the percentage result isn't so low."
"Its price could be better."
More BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer Pricing and Cost Advice →
ActiveBatch by Redwood is ranked 5th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 35 reviews while BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is ranked 3rd in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 21 reviews. ActiveBatch by Redwood is rated 9.2, while BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of ActiveBatch by Redwood writes "Flexible, easy to use, and offers good automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer writes "Adaptable, useful file transfer, and has helpful technical support". ActiveBatch by Redwood is most compared with Control-M, AutoSys Workload Automation, Tidal by Redwood, VisualCron and IBM Workload Automation, whereas BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is most compared with MOVEit, IBM Sterling File Gateway, Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct, Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer and Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT. See our ActiveBatch by Redwood vs. BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer report.
See our list of best Managed File Transfer (MFT) vendors.
We monitor all Managed File Transfer (MFT) 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.