We performed a comparison between AppWorx Workload Automation and Control-M based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AppWorx Workload Automation is highly praised for its ease of use, straightforwardness, and dependability. Control-M shines in its ability to handle file transfers efficiently, integrate seamlessly with other systems, provide Role-Based Administration, and facilitate collaboration.
AppWorx Workload Automation users desire improvements in API integration and better integration with other tools. Control-M users have a broader range of improvement requests, such as bug fixes, customization options, and integration with third-party tools.
Service and Support: AppWorx Workload Automation has been praised for its excellent customer service, particularly its highly-rated technical support. Control-M has received mixed feedback. Some customers appreciate the prompt and knowledgeable support team, while others have faced slower response times and a lack of proactivity.
Ease of Deployment: The initial setup for AppWorx Workload Automation may seem complex to those unfamiliar with the system, however, it is considered relatively easy and straightforward. It requires administrator access and involvement in deploying the system with databases. Control-M's initial setup is generally described as straightforward and easy. Users find it easy to understand the architecture and install the software. However, there is a learning curve and manual conversion of jobs and scripts, which adds complexity and time to the process.
Pricing: AppWorx Workload Automation's setup cost depends on the number of orchestrated systems, resulting in higher expenses. Control-M's pricing and licensing have received varying feedback, with some users considering it uncomplicated and clear, while others perceive it as perplexing and costly.
ROI: AppWorx Workload Automation does not provide detailed information about the return on investment. Control-M has demonstrated reduced expenses, increased productivity, automation, and improved workflows, making it a valuable choice for businesses.
Comparison Results: Control-M is the favored choice when comparing it to AppWorx Workload Automation. It is commended for its user-friendly interface, extensive capabilities in managing workflows and data pipelines, and valuable features including Managed File Transfer and Role-Based Administration. Users also value the helpful guides and videos provided by Control-M.
"We have a lot of nightly jobs that need to be run. Therefore, we perform a lot of calculations and processes during nighttime hours."
"It is really a robust product."
"The automated solution is the most valuable piece. Otherwise, we would have to be doing everything manually on every server."
"It is an object-based approach to task and process design in conjunction with conditional logic and event-based scheduling actions, which enables a build once/use often design methodology to be employed."
"It has improved my organization through automation of back office and infrastructure procedures, and by integrating and orchestrating key business applications spanning multiple technology stacks."
"The interface is good."
"Scheduling is a good feature."
"The solution is very user friendly so anyone can use it."
"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."
"I find it very helpful to be able to keep track of all our help desk tickets."
"The web interface is handy. It's easy to use, and Control-M provides you with the necessary materials to understand the features and perform various tasks."
"The pressure on our operations and our maintenance has been reduced."
"The initial setup is largely straightforward."
"BIM is helpful because we do not miss any SLAs, as we get to know the issue well in advance. It is the topmost service that has helped us provide better solutions for the business."
"The Control-M interface is good for creating, monitoring, and ensuring the delivery of files as part of our data pipeline. There's a wealth of information in both the full client, as well as the web interface that they have. Both are very easy to use and provide all the necessary material to understand how to do various tasks. The help feature is very useful and informative and everything is very easy to understand."
"The Automation API has opened up a world of possibilities for us, including the ability to create workflows on-demand using traditional DevOps tools."
"It has been a deprecated product, because it is so old. There has been a couple of new solutions that are a little more advanced."
"The internal security model can be complex when configuring multiple user groups."
"The scalability could improve."
"It is difficult to integrate with the Active Directory (AD)."
"The graphical interface is pretty cool but not the best so it could use some improvement."
"As a general process automation and integration tool, it has been superseded by other offerings, notably the Workload Automation suite."
"Reporting, forecasting and intelligence could be improved."
"The compliance features are limited to the server and not the entire infrastructure."
"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."
"The report form and display function are weak; they are not very powerful."
"For installing or upgrading the PeopleSoft and SAP plugins, currently there is no way to do it via Control-M Configuration Manager. So, we are installing or upgrading the plugins, like PeopleSoft and SAP, manually. If BMC could provide an option via Control-M Configuration Manager to upgrade these plugins, it probably would reduce a lot of manual work as well as ease our work. This is one improvement that I personally want to see, because it would help our way of working."
"The infrastructure could be improved."
"In general, it is a very good product, and we are very happy with it. It meets all of our expectations."
"I would like to see more auditing capabilities. Right now, it has the basics and I've been trying to set those up to work with what our auditors are looking for."
"Control-M doesn't have any dynamic reporting facilities or features."
"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?""
AppWorx Workload Automation is ranked 17th in Workload Automation with 7 reviews while Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews. AppWorx Workload Automation is rated 8.0, while Control-M is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AppWorx Workload Automation writes "The scheduling tool and finance module are valuable features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Control-M writes "We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability". AppWorx Workload Automation is most compared with Automic Workload Automation, AutoSys Workload Automation, Automic Automation Intelligence, Stonebranch and OpCon, 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 AppWorx Workload Automation 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.