We performed a comparison between Control-M and Redwood Software - Workload Automation Edition based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Control-M offers valuable features such as Managed File Transfer, credentials vault, integration capabilities, Role-Based Administration, file transfer integration, collaboration dashboard, scheduling, web interface, reporting, workload archiving, and forecasting. Redwood Software provides powerful job definitions, job importation, user authority restrictions, monitoring alerts, dashboards, error handling, task scheduling, system integration, user-friendly interface, real-time event monitoring, cloud automation, load balancing, memory management, and mobile notifications.
Control-M could benefit from improvements in microservices, API integration, reporting capabilities, and customization options. Redwood Software would benefit from improvements in reporting features, monitoring and alert service, user interface, and security standards.
Service and Support: Control-M's customer service and support have received both positive and negative feedback. Some customers appreciate the support team's promptness and expertise, while others believe there is room for improvement in terms of responsiveness and proactive assistance. Redwood Software's customer service and support have garnered predominantly positive reviews, with customers describing it as good and helpful.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Control-M was generally user-friendly and supported by informative guides and videos. Nevertheless, a few users encountered difficulties in converting jobs or dealing with database problems. Redwood Software was described as intricate and time-consuming. However, after completing the setup, it resulted in a smaller system footprint and facilitated easy upgrades.
Pricing: Control-M has a high setup cost, including expenses like infrastructure and salaries. This can be burdensome for smaller companies due to the pricing being based on the number of jobs or endpoints. Redwood Software has a more innovative pricing model that is based on job executions. This makes it cost-effective and advantageous for companies looking to explore new platforms.
ROI: The Control-M product offers advantages such as reduced expenses, enhanced task performance, stability, and efficient data handling. Users of Redwood have experienced time savings and improved job scheduling, resulting in a return on investment.
Comparison Results: The user reviews indicate that Control-M is the preferred product compared to Redwood. Users appreciate Control-M for its easy setup, consistent performance, useful features like Managed File Transfer and Role-Based Administration, and its ability to improve operational efficiency. Control-M stands out with its more extensive solution, greater automation, user-friendly interface, and the value it brings to organizations.
"BIM is a good tool to monitor SLAs, and being a financial organization, this is a very good feature for us."
"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."
"The ability to integrate file transfers has been instrumental in allowing us to accomplish the things we need with Control-M. In our industry, we take a lot of data and either push it down to the stores or retail grocery stores. We take files and push them down to the stores or pull files and information from the stores and bring it back to corporate. So, it's two-way communication with file transfers. One of the bigger things that we do with Control-M is scheduling data moves and moving data from one location to another."
"The File Watcher utility, cyclic jobs, and email alert notification are valuable."
"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."
"The pressure on our operations and our maintenance has been reduced."
"Self Service for repeatable, low impact workload automation processes."
"Control-M has enabled true enterprise batch automation, which combined with the other BMC Control products on our mainframe platform, allows us to run a 24/7 site with the lights out."
"It saves us a lot of time and money by doing jobs automatically."
"REL expressions are quite helpful for setting up the preconditions."
"There are various ways in which you can construct jobs depending on your business needs and requirements."
"We can create and test micro-workflows to find defects sooner."
"There won't be a memory outage issue, as it uses its own server/ECC memory only."
"It is very easy and easy to use, and minimal supervision is required to run it."
"Redwood RunMyJobs has been very useful for job scheduling and checking and monitoring jobs."
"By automating the job processes it has saved us a lot of time and resources."
"The stability could be improved. I ran into an issue with a recent Control-M patch. The environment would become unstable if security ports were scanned. This is an area they need to improve on, but ultimately it's a relatively small improvement."
"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."
"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."
"A lot of businesses are using ServiceNow, which is another tool. I would like there to be some integration with ServiceNow or other third-party tools as well as have easily available integrations. Right now, we need to write scripts. Apart from that, if there were some integrations with an ITSM tool, then that would be good. Because at the end of the day, most of our clients are using different ITSM tools. I know that BMC Remedy is easy to integrate with Control-M. However, if there was availability for Jira as well as other ITSM and DevOps tools, that would be a good improvement."
"The MFT applications should have more functionality and flexibility within that tool. Having more flexibility with that tool for handling the one to many or many to one concept. Like being able to take data from one source and push it to many locations or pull data from many locations and bring it back into a single source. That's why we still use our TPS program for the file transfers just because we don't have some of those capabilities available to us within MFT."
"Some of the features are not available. We were about to deploy the REST API, but we had some challenges. We had to use a third-party application. So, it should be improved in terms of integrating REST API jobs. That was something that was lacking. The customer was not that happy in terms of getting the desired output. So, we had to use a third-party application called Hangfire. We would like to have more videos on REST API integration, and we would like to have easy integration with the Control-M application through the REST API."
"We have some plug-ins like BOBJ, and we need a little improvement there. Other than that, it has been pretty good. I haven't seen any issues."
"Control-M doesn't have any dynamic reporting facilities or features."
"The only issue at first was that we had to manually delete or raise the event in order to run some of the events and wait for jobs, even if the file was kept at the correct AL11 position."
"We need the automatic creation of incidents for failed jobs."
"The reports are downloaded in .CAR file format, which makes it difficult to convert to an Excel file."
"The documentation for this product is limited, which can be improved in the future."
"Due to the abundance of competing automation technologies available on the market, connectivity with any cloud platform can be improved."
"The user interface of Redwood can be improved a bit to make it more user-friendly and interesting."
"They should be made more cost-effective in comparison to similar software services."
"There is a lack of resources and product documentation which, if included, would help to gain more knowledge about the application."
Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews while Redwood RunMyJobs is ranked 3rd in Workload Automation with 30 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while Redwood RunMyJobs is rated 9.6. 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 Redwood RunMyJobs writes "Simple to use, increases CPU speed, and reduces the cost of machine time". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, whereas Redwood RunMyJobs is most compared with Stonebranch, Tidal by Redwood, AutoSys Workload Automation, Automic Automation Intelligence and ActiveBatch by Redwood. See our Control-M vs. Redwood RunMyJobs 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.
