We performed a comparison between BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer and webMethods ActiveTransfer 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."Dashboard and recovery are the features I found most valuable in the solution."
"The GUI is good if I'm comparing it to other scheduling products."
"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 solution supports all file transfers."
"This solution has a vast amount of features and with every new release, there are lots of new features introduced. The application has high availability—we have multiple customers and it's highly available. On an application level, if something goes down with the primary, then the application goes over to the secondary, so it's very, very easy to do disaster recovery. From an application integration point of view, it has a lot of APIs, rich APIs. Every month, they are releasing new APIs and new updates, like Java, but more than that. Now they are introducing a couple more APIs, which you can use to integrate your controlling environment with any applications you want."
"There's another feature called Workload Archiving, where the data for all the jobs can be stored for however many days that we want, which is very useful for any historical analytics."
"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."
"The most valuable thing is that it works as advertised. We don't take advantage of some of the features like we should because that's not our primary role and responsibility in the environment that we manage. We only want to make sure that a file gets to where it was supposed to go, or we pull in a file and it comes to us correctly."
"ActiveTransfer lets us maintain the file in the staging area before we transfer it. After that, we can remove the file to make sure that the reconciliation process is done. Sometimes we will zip and unzip the files, but if we have a GKB file, we often ignore it."
"The core product can be used not only for automatic file transfers between applications, but also as an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)."
"Its current functionalities can be upgraded."
"We're only using the functionality that we need to use. However, we've had an opportunity to work with one application owner here who wanted to do some transfers in the cloud and things like that. I know that there were some challenges on that, but they finally got all that set up. There was a learning curve though."
"Its price could be better."
"One can opt for either a job-based license or a job execution-based license, which sometimes can be troublesome. If the job count exceeds a limit, you may need to procure additional licenses from BMC."
"The structure between the Control-M/Server and Control-M/Agent could possibly be improved."
"Password vaulting would be a feature that should be included."
"BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer has a scheduler and what they do is capture the steps based on the script, and then they put it into the Control-M job, or task. Any system that has the script behind it the solution can do it."
"Scalability is something that needs to be improved."
"Some things could be improved, especially how ActiveTransfer handles third-party file transfers. It would be nice to have a native file-watching mechanism for when you're scheduling jobs with a third-party scheduler. Currently, we are using an outside file watcher solution to check the files before the file transfer. It checks the location to see if the file is there. If the file is there, it will prepare it for transfer. If the file isn't available, it will send an email it can create a ticket send it now. We recommended adding this file watcher mechanism."
"I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance."
More BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer Pricing and Cost Advice →
BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is ranked 3rd in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 21 reviews while webMethods ActiveTransfer is ranked 17th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 2 reviews. BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is rated 8.8, while webMethods ActiveTransfer is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer writes "Adaptable, useful file transfer, and has helpful technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods ActiveTransfer writes "It lets us maintain the file in the staging area before we transfer it". BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer is most compared with MOVEit, IBM Sterling File Gateway, Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct and Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer, whereas webMethods ActiveTransfer is most compared with Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer and Fortra's Globalscape Managed File Transfer. See our BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer vs. webMethods ActiveTransfer 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.