We performed a comparison between Control-M and OpenText Cloud Service Automation based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Pega, Appian and others in Process Automation."As soon as you have an issue, a ticket is created and the tech support is quite responsive."
"We can tie together all the workloads across the estate and make the whole process reactive to events."
"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."
"We used Control-M's Python Client and cloud data service integrations with AWS and, as a feature, it was very customizable. It gave us a lot of flexibility for customizing whatever data maneuver we wanted to do within a pipeline."
"My organization has been able to script scheduled jobs in Control-M to potentially replace legacy products that are at end of life or end of service. The previous backup applications that were being used for specific files, folders, or applications were no longer being supported, therefore being able to use Control-M to replace that has been very valuable."
"BIM is a good tool to monitor SLAs, and being a financial organization, this is a very good feature for us."
"Promotions between environments, as well as local, mass update, versioning, and self-service."
"Technical support is very helpful and available 24/7."
"The tool's most valuable feature is life cycle management."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus Cloud Service is how user friendly the solution is."
"The main area that could be improved would be documentation, just like every other software product out there!"
"Consider adding a mobile application for remote management."
"Control-M doesn't have any dynamic reporting facilities or features."
"Control-M reporting is a bit of a pain point right now. Control-M doesn't have robust reporting. I would like to see better reporting options. I would like to be able to pull charts or statistics that look nicer. Right now, we can pull some data, but it is kind of choppy. It would be nicer to have enterprise-level reporting that you can present to managers."
"The stability of Control-M has Not been great. A big thing we've been trying to work on with BMC is observability. Modern applications should be observable and resilient, but we're finding that sometimes Control-M is not very resilient and many times Control-M is not very observable."
"They can improve their interface."
"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."
"Its architecture is old. AutoSys gives more flexibility."
"OpenText Cloud Service Automation needs to incorporate easier installation. It should improve skills and quality of support."
"I would like fewer restrictions as a software tester."
More OpenText Cloud Service Automation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Control-M is ranked 4th in Process Automation with 110 reviews while OpenText Cloud Service Automation is ranked 27th in Cloud Management with 6 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while OpenText Cloud Service Automation is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Cloud Service Automation writes "Comes with life cycle management features but needs improvement in installation ". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Automic Workload Automation, whereas OpenText Cloud Service Automation is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform.
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.
