Compare BMC TrueSight Orchestration vs. Control-M

BMC TrueSight Orchestration is ranked 15th in Process Automation with 1 review while Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 17 reviews. BMC TrueSight Orchestration is rated 6.0, while Control-M is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of BMC TrueSight Orchestration writes "A Scalable Monitoring solution that is easy to install, but not intended for Complicated Environments". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "File transfer module is quite advanced, this version has less need for written programs and is more GUI-based". BMC TrueSight Orchestration is most compared with Ansible, Operations Orchestration and Control-M, whereas Control-M is most compared with CA Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation and Ansible.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Use BMC TrueSight Orchestration? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Bizagi, Appian and others in Process Automation. Updated: February 2020.
398,567 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
This solution is scalable.

Read more »

The Automation API has opened up a world of possibilities for us, including the ability to create workflows on-demand using traditional DevOps tools.I find it very helpful to be able to keep track of all our help desk tickets.Most of our tasks also deal with databases, and Control-M's purpose-built module for the databases comes in very handy when handling database components.BIM is a good tool to monitor SLAs, and being a financial organization, this is a very good feature for us.The most valuable features are the managing of file transfers and the product keeping up with technology.The monitoring tool is very good. It's very easy for expert and entry-level users to use on short notice.It can do anything that I need. We do real-time jobs. We also do jobs that have to run at certain times. I have not been presented with a scheduling need that I was not able to do. It is very flexible and dynamic.Monitoring is a valuable aspect of it. The monitoring tool is very good, and it is easy for expert and entry level users to use on a short notice.

Read more »

Cons
The architecture of this solution needs improvement, it is very complicated. It creates a lot of problems in our environment. Most of the time I am trying to find and solve the problem.

Read more »

The next major release needs to focus on the lightweight web client.There's a lot of room for improvement and I think it can be more user-friendly.A developer sandbox could be very helpful to try out new features or experience them.The Control-M API does not support SQL database-type jobs, where a job has been configured to use the SQL catalog to locate SSIS.Their technicians should be more involved when we're applying new technology to Control-M, such as cloud. We're working with cloud right now, with AWS, and getting the attention of a technician, sometimes, can take some time. It would be nice if they had somebody assigned to it. Dedicated support.I would like not to have to reach out to a third-party application company to do automated notifications. Right now, we still have people manually calling people and emailing people. There's a company called xMatters - and there are others - that has an API through Control-M that can automate any aspect of failure management. I'd like to see it build right into the product. I'd like to see a better notification product.I'm not sure how the solution fits together with our business modernization initiatives, as there are things outside of my area, even though Control-M is the scheduling tool of the company. They may use other things, e.g., Big Data.The reporting tool still needs a lot of improvement. It was supposed to get better with the upgrade, and it really didn't get better. It needs help, because it's such a useful thing to have. It needs to be more powerful and easier to use.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
Pricing can be steep, but you get what you pay for.Licensing costs are around $3000 a year.It works on task-based licensing.This product saves hours in a day based on my experience working here versus other companies with manually operations.We have a five-year contract with task-based licensing.As we increase the number of tasks or jobs on the system, there are concerns about cost.We have account based licensing. There are two or three types of licensing. One of them is based on the number of jobs, so we a license close to 4,000 jobs per day. The cost is based on the different modules, which we buy from them. If we a buy a hardware module, which we are presently using and integrating, that is an additional cost, but I'm not sure of the amount. Each module comes with a different cost.we are more looking for a better cost/license/performance model because BMC, while we could say it's the best, is also the most expensive. That is what we are probably most annoyed with. We are paying something like €1,000,000 over three years for having 4,000 jobs running. That's expensive.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
398,567 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
15th
out of 32 in Process Automation
Views
1,678
Comparisons
1,343
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
352
Avg. Rating
6.0
1st
out of 22 in Workload Automation
Views
29,028
Comparisons
12,441
Reviews
17
Average Words per Review
619
Avg. Rating
8.5
Top Comparisons
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Also Known As
TrueSight Orchestration, Atrium OrchestratorControl-M
Learn
BMC
BMC
Overview

IT process automation can significantly lower the cost of IT delivery and reduce the risk associated with manual interactions. BMC Atrium Orchestrator automates common, repeatable tasks to improve quality of service across the board.

  • Move from reactive, manual handling of requests to a fully automated system
  • Deliver consistent task and automation workflow results
  • Automate data collection for audit compliance
  • Align with best practices
  • Free up IT resources

Control‑M is a digital enterprise management solution that simplifies and automates diverse batch application workloads while reducing failure rates, improving SLAs, and accelerating application deployment. 

Automate job scheduling and application deployment

  • Connect applications and workflow processes to quickly and reliably deliver business services
  • Realize the potential of big data while freeing IT for other tasks
  • Take control of your file transfer operations with secure scheduling, instant status visibility, and automated recovery
  • Accelerate application change and deployment cycle times with automated application workflow between test and production
  • Empower users to make decisions in real time and perform basic tasks in a view and language they understand
  • Deploy Control-M on-premises or on the cloud
Offer
Learn more about BMC TrueSight Orchestration
Learn more about Control-M
Sample Customers
Ameritas, Buckeye Partners, KNAB, Dex Media, News UKCARFAX, ChipRewards, Sun Chemical, University of California, Unum
Top Industries
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm43%
Healthcare Company9%
Retailer9%
Insurance Company6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company41%
Comms Service Provider8%
Marketing Services Firm8%
Financial Services Firm7%
Company Size
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Small Business10%
Midsize Enterprise15%
Large Enterprise75%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business1%
Midsize Enterprise1%
Large Enterprise98%
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Bizagi, Appian and others in Process Automation. Updated: February 2020.
398,567 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Process 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.