We performed a comparison between AppWorx Workload Automation and Control-M based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AppWorx Workload Automation is highly praised for its ease of use, straightforwardness, and dependability. Control-M shines in its ability to handle file transfers efficiently, integrate seamlessly with other systems, provide Role-Based Administration, and facilitate collaboration.
AppWorx Workload Automation users desire improvements in API integration and better integration with other tools. Control-M users have a broader range of improvement requests, such as bug fixes, customization options, and integration with third-party tools.
Service and Support: AppWorx Workload Automation has been praised for its excellent customer service, particularly its highly-rated technical support. Control-M has received mixed feedback. Some customers appreciate the prompt and knowledgeable support team, while others have faced slower response times and a lack of proactivity.
Ease of Deployment: The initial setup for AppWorx Workload Automation may seem complex to those unfamiliar with the system, however, it is considered relatively easy and straightforward. It requires administrator access and involvement in deploying the system with databases. Control-M's initial setup is generally described as straightforward and easy. Users find it easy to understand the architecture and install the software. However, there is a learning curve and manual conversion of jobs and scripts, which adds complexity and time to the process.
Pricing: AppWorx Workload Automation's setup cost depends on the number of orchestrated systems, resulting in higher expenses. Control-M's pricing and licensing have received varying feedback, with some users considering it uncomplicated and clear, while others perceive it as perplexing and costly.
ROI: AppWorx Workload Automation does not provide detailed information about the return on investment. Control-M has demonstrated reduced expenses, increased productivity, automation, and improved workflows, making it a valuable choice for businesses.
Comparison Results: Control-M is the favored choice when comparing it to AppWorx Workload Automation. It is commended for its user-friendly interface, extensive capabilities in managing workflows and data pipelines, and valuable features including Managed File Transfer and Role-Based Administration. Users also value the helpful guides and videos provided by Control-M.
"The automated solution is the most valuable piece. Otherwise, we would have to be doing everything manually on every server."
"The most valuable features of AppWorx Workload Automation are simplicity and reliability. Additionally, they recently transformed the UI which is better."
"We have a lot of nightly jobs that need to be run. Therefore, we perform a lot of calculations and processes during nighttime hours."
"The interface is good."
"It is an object-based approach to task and process design in conjunction with conditional logic and event-based scheduling actions, which enables a build once/use often design methodology to be employed."
"It is really a robust product."
"It has improved my organization through automation of back office and infrastructure procedures, and by integrating and orchestrating key business applications spanning multiple technology stacks."
"Scheduling is a good feature."
"BIM is helpful because we do not miss any SLAs, as we get to know the issue well in advance. It is the topmost service that has helped us provide better solutions for the business."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"It has multiple features. You can plan your execution in Control-M. It provides one single window where you can define workflows regardless of geographic boundaries and platforms. A batch process can be executed from this single window. It provides insights into your processes. Your business people will know what process they are running and what is the state of the process. Instead of knowing that they're not going to meet the SLA the next morning, the business people immediately know the changes in their process. Control-M is very easy. I can tell a non-technical person that this is how it works, and he would be able to easily understand it. Business people can understand the methodology of Control-M and the intuitive features that it has. It has a fantastic graphical user interface and is easy to understand. You just have to drag and drop but in a very intuitive way. Monitoring features are also good. It has different color coding schemes, which can help you to understand the status of your workflow. An operator who is not that technical and is just monitoring the status of the application can see by color-coding the status of a process. If anything goes wrong or a process is stuck, it gives you a hint. You can just right-click and see the logs and the output. Even if the system is not right there in the data center and is located somewhere else, you can monitor it right from there and see the workflows."
"Maintaining and monitoring of workloads have been and continue to be the most valuable feature in our environment."
"The File Transfer component is quite valuable. The integration with products such as Informatica and SAP are very valuable to us as well. Rather than having to build our own interface into those products, we can use the ones that come out of the box. The integration with databases is valuable as well. We use database jobs quite a bit."
"Workload Archiving is a very good feature for us. It helps with our customer requirements in terms of reporting and auditing... Previously, when we didn't have any archive server, we managed the data in Control-M with man-made scripts, and we would pull the data for the last 365 days, or three or four months back. Since we installed the archiving, we have been able to pull the data, anytime and anywhere, with just one click."
"Technical support is very helpful and available 24/7."
"The monitoring tool is very good. It's very easy for expert and entry-level users to use on short notice."
"It has been a deprecated product, because it is so old. There has been a couple of new solutions that are a little more advanced."
"The graphical interface is pretty cool but not the best so it could use some improvement."
"As a general process automation and integration tool, it has been superseded by other offerings, notably the Workload Automation suite."
"The compliance features are limited to the server and not the entire infrastructure."
"We are looking for additional features that would allow us to call APIs and integrate the product with other tools more effectively."
"The internal security model can be complex when configuring multiple user groups."
"Reporting, forecasting and intelligence could be improved."
"The scalability could improve."
"The initial setup was complex, because I wasn't used to it."
"Advanced File Transfer (AFT) has limitations that cause us to use a bit more licensing than we feel is appropriate."
"Whenever I pull an S4HANA job to the Helix Control-M tool, it pulls it naturally with all the steps. A job can have several steps, and in this case, it is very easy to control the steps taken. However, in the case of the SaaS IBP tool, it can pull the job but cannot identify the steps. So, when I want to take an action in a step, I have to split the job."
"I would like to have a web version of Control-M to replace the client. Currently, our support and jobs-creation teams are using the client and that needs to be installed on a PC. It's very heavy, consuming a lot of resources compared to the web portal. I know that they're trying to improve the client with the latest version, but for me, there hasn't been enough improvement yet."
"Its architecture is old. AutoSys gives more flexibility."
"The unifying features between Control-M for different platforms needs improvement. The scheduling options on the Control-M mainframe jobs are different than they are on our Linux server. There are a few differences here and there."
"The infrastructure could be improved."
"Control-M reporting isn't that good. It is very limited. We would like the ability to create our own reports as well as the ability to publish dashboards in the cloud, which would help us. Improved reporting will help us determine statuses and get the answers that we need. However, I personally think BMC is not focusing on the reporting. I have even visited the BMC office in India, and asked, "Why haven't you improved the reporting?""
AppWorx Workload Automation is ranked 17th in Workload Automation with 7 reviews while Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews. AppWorx Workload Automation is rated 8.0, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AppWorx Workload Automation writes "The scheduling tool and finance module are valuable features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". AppWorx Workload Automation is most compared with Automic Workload Automation, AutoSys Workload Automation, Automic Automation Intelligence and Stonebranch, whereas Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Automic Workload Automation. See our AppWorx 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.
