We performed a comparison between Control-M and UiPath Orchestrator 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."Self Service for repeatable, low impact workload automation processes."
"Our ability to integrate with many different solutions has been invaluable. The new approach of the automation API and jobs-as-code is also valuable."
"Technical support is very helpful and available 24/7."
"Because it's a tool which allows us to do scheduled work, it allows for notifications when jobs aren't running within that scheduled time frame. This improves the opportunity to meet SLAs."
"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."
"In our bank, all new applications need to be implemented with Control-M. We try to look for the best way to establish communication between both products. One of the new features for us is Application Integrator. It is a very interesting feature because it lets us integrate with those applications that are not included in Control-M. By using Application Integrator, we can easily integrate new technologies. With the help of Application Integrator, we recently integrated with Blue Prism, which is a robotic product. We could integrate such processes into Control-M. Now, we are working with Ansible, and we are putting Ansible automated processes into Control-M."
"The most valuable features are the Advanced File Transfer and the manage file transfer. They make transferring files securely seamless. It's very easy to set up, get deployed, and have it transferred to and from vendors. As long as we can get our firewall rules implemented at a decent time, it's very easy and seamless to get important files transferred in a secure manner."
"In Helix Control-M, we have the automation API that allows us to customize and do integrations easily in any script, such as Java or Python. It is all integrated within the integration API."
"The tool's most valuable feature is reporting. Being on the business side, I need to report on the efficiency and the business case scenarios we build upon for the RPA. I need to find and analyze the relevant data."
"The reporting features are good."
"UiPath Orchestrator is a stable solution."
"From what I have seen, it is a reliable tool."
"Using UiPath Orchestrator, we can deploy tasks across different environments, including virtual machines, for both attended and unattended processes."
"The platform serves as a valuable tool for orchestrating solutions within an organization."
"The response time and support quality are good."
"Assets and logs are valuable."
"Advanced File Transfer (AFT) has limitations that cause us to use a bit more licensing than we feel is appropriate."
"Control-M reporting isn't that good. It is very limited. We would like the ability to create our own reports as well as the ability to publish dashboards in the cloud, which would help us. Improved reporting will help us determine statuses and get the answers that we need. However, I personally think BMC is not focusing on the reporting. I have even visited the BMC office in India, and asked, "Why haven't you improved the reporting?""
"But for some issues, BMC will suggest to upgrade to new version which will not be feasible to standards of the organisation. Hence some work around should be shown to run the business until new version was upgraded."
"They can improve their interface."
"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."
"Finding documentation on the website can be a bit confusing."
"You need to pay for extra features if you need them."
"They can give more predefined plug-ins so that we don't have to create them."
"The code management for the Studio could be improved."
"Clarity on integrating SQL databases and server configurations would improve implementation processes."
"It is challenging to accurately define text within images for the product."
"Limiting certain deployment scenarios and enforcing best practices could be beneficial."
"The vendor should provide free certification to their partners."
"UiPath Orchestrator should improve its UI and make it more user-friendly."
"The vision libraries that the tool provides, along with the visualization part, are areas with shortcomings in the solution where improvements are required."
"UiPath Orchestrator is sometimes a bit clunky, and a few things don't work in the tool as they should."
Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews while UiPath Orchestrator is ranked 11th in Workload Automation with 21 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while UiPath Orchestrator is rated 8.2. 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 UiPath Orchestrator writes "A user-friendly and reliable tool that is easy to implement". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, Automic Workload Automation and ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas UiPath Orchestrator is most compared with . See our Control-M vs. UiPath Orchestrator 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.
