We performed a comparison between Automic Automation Intelligence and Control-M based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Workload Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of Automic Automation Intelligence is the ability to see all of the batches from one place. Additionally, there is a multiple scheduler that is useful."
"The Action Packs are a good feature."
"The tool's online manuals and documentation are good. Its user interface is user-friendly."
"I find Control-M for SAP and Control-M for Informatica good. You can connect to the Linux or Windows servers, and you can run multiple jobs."
"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 pressure on our operations and our maintenance has been reduced."
"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."
"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."
"It has certainly helped speed things up."
"Cross-platform support: A Linux job can be dependent on a Windows job, which can be dependent on many other flavours of hardware/software. Your batch is therefore managed by a single tool, allowing you to monitor your entire flow."
"Maintaining and monitoring of workloads have been and continue to be the most valuable feature in our environment."
"The solution could benefit by having more connectors and customized widgets. Additionally, a dashboard that people could use for videos would be helpful."
"The job reporting feature needs improvement."
"Integration of the solution could be improved."
"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."
"We did encounter a few scalability issues. Sometimes, there are too many jobs in our environment on different servers, but that’s not the tool issue, we can simply increase the FS size. However, that requires bank cost; hence the scalability issue."
"I would like to have a web version of Control-M to replace the client. Currently, our support and jobs-creation teams are using the client and that needs to be installed on a PC. It's very heavy, consuming a lot of resources compared to the web portal. I know that they're trying to improve the client with the latest version, but for me, there hasn't been enough improvement yet."
"Its installation can be better. Currently, we have to install it manually. The file transfer feature can also be improved. It is not very easy to transfer a file from business to business. In terms of new features, they can include new technologies. It can have API integration."
"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."
"In general, it is a very good product, and we are very happy with it. It meets all of our expectations."
"The performance could be better. Control-M Enterprise Manager tends to slow the system down even on a server with a six-core processor and 32 gigabytes RAM. The console is Java-based, so maybe OpenJDK 16 or 17 would be a performance improvement."
"With earlier versions, the support was not accurate or delivered in a timely manner. What would happen is that I would be in production mode and I would have an issue and would want to get someone on a call to see what was happening. But they would always say, “Hey, provide the log first and then we'll review and we'll get back to you." I feel that when a customer asks about a production issue, they should jump onto the call to see what is going on, and then collect the logs."
More Automic Automation Intelligence Pricing and Cost Advice →
Automic Automation Intelligence is ranked 20th in Workload Automation with 3 reviews while Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews. Automic Automation Intelligence is rated 8.6, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Automic Automation Intelligence writes "Useful multiple scheduler, centralized batch view, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". Automic Automation Intelligence is most compared with Redwood RunMyJobs, AutoSys Workload Automation, AppWorx Workload Automation, Automic Workload Automation and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Automic Workload Automation. See our Automic Automation Intelligence vs. Control-M 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.
