Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Control-M vs. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
377,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
I find it very helpful to be able to keep track of all our help desk tickets.
The Automation API has opened up a world of possibilities for us, including the ability to create workflows on-demand using traditional DevOps tools.
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.
The Universal Agent is the most valuable feature. Being agent-based and being able to go across multiple technology stacks, which is what our workflows do, Stonebranch gives us the ability to bridge those disparate technologies. It enables us to remove the dependency-gap with the agent so we know the status of the workflow at each step.
This solution will monitor the return codes from all processes and alert us when something fails, whether or not a programmer has a test in the program to identify that problem. It has raised the visibility of these errors which we are working on to solve, making the code much more robust.
It provides more visibility to developers. It has given us better visibility into failed tasks and jobs, so we're able to start working on solutions before production starts calling. This has saved us money. We are now able to be a lot more proactive instead of reactive. We are able to solve jobs without people screaming and staring at us while we're trying to solve the problem.
The most valuable feature is the reliability of the agents, because we need them accessible and we need to run stuff. The agent technology and compatibility are top-notch.
The ability to monitor tasks that are on the open-system side as well as our mainframe side gives us a one-window view of all our processes.
I love the Universal Controller. It's been great for us. We host it on-premise... It's High Availability, meaning there's failover from one server to the other if one goes down.
We lean a lot on the multi-tenancy that they offer within the product, the ability to get other people to self-manage their estate, versus having a central team do all the scheduling.
When it comes to agent technology and compatibility with other vendors, from a platform perspective it was the one vendor that fit all the platforms that we have, from your old platforms - mainframe, NSK, IBM i - to the new ones, going into cloud and container
There's a lot of room for improvement and I think it can be more user-friendly.
The next major release needs to focus on the lightweight web client.
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.
Occasionally, we have an agent that doesn't come back up after patching. That doesn't happen very often... It's really just a restart of the agent and it comes back up. But that might be one thing that could be improved.
We would like to run it in high availability in multiple clusters, but it has to read and write to one flat file. To us, that's a single point of failure that will prevent us from moving it to clustering like we would want to do.
We would like the solution to work better with SSIS and SSRS. Right now, it just starts the job but does not give us any visibility into whether the job ran correctly or not. It tells us it started it, but it doesn't tell us how long it ran, any of the output, etc. We have lost that sort of visibility by going to Stonebranch.
The Universal Controller is decent for the money it costs... It needs some work to have full features, compared to other products that are out there, specifically IBM's Workload Scheduler.
I have a request regarding our agent on the mainframe. It may time out when communicating to the Universal Controller, when the mainframe is extremely busy. That can cause a task which is running at that time to not see the results of the job that ran on the mainframe. It happens sporadically during times of really busy CPU usage. We're expecting that enhancement from them in the fourth quarter.
There is a component called the OMS, which is the message broker. We rely on infrastructure, resiliency, and availability for that piece. If that could change to be highly available just as a software component, so that we don't have to provide the high-available storage, etc. for it, that would be a plus. It would just be cheaper to run.
One hiccup we've had is due to the fact that we have other internal scheduling tools. We're able to talk to them, but we have trouble with some of the networking between them, so we're still trying to work out the kinks there.
Pricing and Cost Advice
Licensing costs are around $3000 a year.
Pricing can be steep, but you get what you pay for.
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.
We're transaction-based, as far as our licensing goes. We have 50,000 transactions a month and our licensing cost is $55,000 a year...
As new production servers are added, and if the Stonebranch capability is needed, we will add it. We do have more licenses.
I don't have pricing information, but I do know it's cheaper than our old legacy system. Other than the standard licensing fees there are no additional costs.
Outside of licensing fees, there aren't any other costs.
When we reviewed this solution against other vendors, Stonebranch blew everybody out of the water in terms of cost.
out of 22 in Workload Automation
Average Words per Review
out of 22 in Workload Automation
Average Words per Review
Compared 23% of the time.
Compared 17% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 58% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Also Known As
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
Stonebranch provides efficient enterprise-wide workload automation software solutions that solve complex IT business processes in a simple way - from Amazon Web Services, Docker, Openstack, Hadoop, Microsoft Azure to z/OS batch processes on the mainframe.
Go with Stonebranch and automate IT business processes to achieve:
Universal Automation Center provides the full hands-on experience on Premise and Cloud, get your free trial here.
Universal Automation Center (UAC) is a system of four enterprise workload automation products:
Universal Controller is the UAC workload automation and job scheduling software. A central component of the Controller is the integrated drag-and-drop workflow definition tool. This feature allows you to define workflows that closely model your business processes.
Universal Agent is a vendor-independent scheduling agent that collaborates with existing job scheduler(s) on all major computing platforms, both legacy and distributed. All schedulers that run on: z/Series, i/Series, UNIX, Linux, Windows are supported. Universal Agent can be deployed on your job scheduler server and on each machine in your environment where you need to execute batch workloads. The Agent is scheduled as a local task within your scheduler and communicates across your network to control the execution of work. Status and output are reported back to the job scheduler server in real time.
Universal Data Mover provides for the managed file transfer of files between servers and applications. UDM is a centralized and self-managing solution that provides a unified strategy for moving large files between legacy and distributed applications.
Universal Data Mover Gateway automates, secures and simplifies your B2B file transfer processes.
Learn more about Control-M
Learn more about Stonebranch Universal Automation Center
|CARFAX, ChipRewards, Sun Chemical, University of California, Unum||Nissan, Coop, United Supermarkets, Groupon, CSC, Orbitz, Johnson & Johnson, BMW, Qantas.|
Financial Services Firm44%
Software R&D Company36%
Financial Services Firm10%
Marketing Services Firm10%
Comms Service Provider7%
Financial Services Firm50%
Financial Services Firm31%
Software R&D Company20%
Comms Service Provider6%