CA Automic Applications Manager vs. Control-M

As of June 2019, CA Automic Applications Manager is ranked 7th in Workload Automation with 2 reviews vs Control-M which is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 20 reviews. The top reviewer of CA Automic Applications Manager writes "The automated solution is the most valuable piece. Otherwise, we would have to be doing everything manually on every server". 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". CA Automic Applications Manager is most compared with Control-M, CA Workload Automation and Automic Workload Automation. Control-M is most compared with CA Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation and Automic Workload Automation. See our CA Automic Applications Manager vs. Control-M report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Automic Applications Manager vs. Control-M and other solutions. Updated: May 2019.
348,275 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
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.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.The automated solution is the most valuable piece. Otherwise, we would have to be doing everything manually on every server.It is really a robust product.

Read more »

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.If a job fails, that development team is notified right away, which improves reliability. Previously, it was on the operators to notify the developers that their job failed, erred, or aborted. Now, it's all automated.Because it's a tool which allows us to do scheduled work, it allows for notifications when jobs aren't running within that scheduled time frame. This improves the opportunity to meet SLAs.Control-M has improved application reliability and the SLAs in our company by quite a bit. You can see if problems are coming. If we have an SLA in a couple of hours, we know well before that couple hours if processing is behind, and it allows us to take some preventative action.It has absolutely saved us time. It has made us more efficient. As far as the processing between systems, we don't have as many people. They have been able to focus on other efforts, because we have been able to automate more stuff with Control-M.We value Control-M mainly for the ability to control multiple nodes in a coordinated manner. Control-M has the ability to really coordinate across a lot of nodes.The feature we use most in Control-M is related to the file transfer module. It is quite advanced compared to the other tools like Automate, etc. The new version which has come of same MFT has a lot of advanced features which makes it very easy to work with. There is less need for written programs and more GUI-based stuff.

Read more »

Cons
As a general process automation and integration tool, it has been superseded by other offerings, notably the Workload Automation suite.The internal security model can be complex when configuring multiple user groups.It is difficult to integrate with the Active Directory (AD).It is not really scaling per say because they are not putting much into it. They are trying to push their new product.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.

Read more »

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.The initial setup was complex, because I wasn't used to it.The company has been working with BMC on the MFT. There are still some things about MFT which don't work the way that we want with our needs. So, we would like to see that improved.Sometimes, with technical support, they will take feedback, but you don't know where that feedback goes or if it proceeds along in the thought process.We would recommend modernizing the look and feel of Control-M. They also need to move towards more self-service and development in their environment. It's very antiquated.One feature I would like to include is in the middle of the monitoring domain. In the monitoring domain, if I have to update a number of jobs, the only way to do it is by manually clicking on each job. I would like a feature that allows me to do a mass update in the jobs, which I feel is still lacking.A smartphone interface would be welcome.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Licensing options are fairly straightforward.

Read more »

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.BMC does NOT have a great licensing model from my perspective.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.
348,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
7th
out of 18 in Workload Automation
Views
327
Comparisons
209
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
402
Avg. Rating
8.5
1st
out of 18 in Workload Automation
Views
31,377
Comparisons
10,706
Reviews
23
Average Words per Review
323
Avg. Rating
8.3
Top Comparisons
Compared 25% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Also Known As
Control-M
Learn
CA Technologies
BMC
Overview

CA Automic Applications Manager automates your Ellucian’s Banner or Fiserv DNA processing. This innovative, best-in-class task scheduling solution accelerates your processing, provides visibility and control over business processes and mitigates risk in both environments.

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 CA Automic Applications Manager
Learn more about Control-M
Sample Customers
Information Not Available
CARFAX, ChipRewards, Sun Chemical, University of California, Unum
Top Industries
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm42%
Healthcare Company10%
Retailer10%
Insurance Company6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm33%
Marketing Services Firm29%
Manufacturing Company10%
Healthcare Company8%
Company Size
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Small Business10%
Midsize Enterprise10%
Large Enterprise79%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business2%
Midsize Enterprise1%
Large Enterprise98%
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Automic Applications Manager vs. Control-M and other solutions. Updated: May 2019.
348,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.

Sign Up with Email