Compare Control-M vs. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center

Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 21 reviews while Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is ranked 4th in Workload Automation with 20 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.6, while Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is rated 9.2. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Stonebranch Universal Automation Center writes "These are the simplest agents to work with - I'm up and running within 30 minutes". Control-M is most compared with CA Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation and Automic Workload Automation, whereas Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is most compared with Control-M, IBM Workload Automation and Automic Workload Automation. See our Control-M vs. Stonebranch Universal Automation Center report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
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.
Quotes From Members

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

Pros
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.

Read more »

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

Read more »

Cons
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.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Workload Automation solutions are best for your needs.
377,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
1st
out of 22 in Workload Automation
Views
27,294
Comparisons
11,793
Reviews
21
Average Words per Review
536
Avg. Rating
8.5
4th
out of 22 in Workload Automation
Views
4,331
Comparisons
1,588
Reviews
20
Average Words per Review
769
Avg. Rating
9.2
Top Comparisons
Compared 23% of the time.
Compared 17% of the time.
Also Known As
Control-M
Learn
BMC
Stonebranch
Overview

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

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:

  1. Single “pane of glass” so your IT team control the status of all scripts, jobs, tasks, workflows running across all servers and VM machines.
  2. Reduce manual IT effort and increase efficiency via automated scheduling and execution of all jobs. No IT engineers manually executing tasks or scheduling activities locally on each VM.
  3. Automatic notifications and alerts (email, ticket, SNMP, SMS) if a workflow condition is not satisfied.
  4. Central repository, auditing and configuration management of all workflow logic, script definitions, job executions.
  5. 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.

Offer
Learn more about Control-M
Learn more about Stonebranch Universal Automation Center
Sample Customers
CARFAX, ChipRewards, Sun Chemical, University of California, UnumNissan, Coop, United Supermarkets, Groupon, CSC, Orbitz, Johnson & Johnson, BMW, Qantas.
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm44%
Healthcare Company9%
Retailer9%
Insurance Company6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company36%
Financial Services Firm10%
Marketing Services Firm10%
Comms Service Provider7%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm50%
Insurance Company19%
Retailer13%
Healthcare Company6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm31%
Software R&D Company20%
Insurance Company11%
Comms Service Provider6%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business9%
Midsize Enterprise13%
Large Enterprise78%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business2%
Midsize Enterprise1%
Large Enterprise98%
REVIEWERS
Midsize Enterprise19%
Large Enterprise81%
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 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