We performed a comparison between Control-M and Dollar Universe Workload Automation 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."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."
"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."
"Control-M has helped to improve our data transfers because it allows us to monitor the execution of the process. With other technologies, we cannot do that."
"BIM is a good tool to monitor SLAs, and being a financial organization, this is a very good feature for us."
"The initial setup is largely straightforward."
"The reporting is top-notch. I haven't found any other applications on the market that can replicate what Control-M offers. The alerting is very good, and I think their service monitoring is the best in the industry."
"The monitoring tool is very good. It's very easy for expert and entry-level users to use on short notice."
"Control-M has helped us resolve issues 70% to 80% faster. It provides us with alerts instead of having someone go to that particular server and check the logs to determine where the issue is. We can simply click on the alert information, then everything is in front of us. This provides us with time savings, human effort savings, and process savings."
"The most valuable features of Dollar Universe Workload Automation are stability and scalability."
"The solution is easy to use and is one of its most valuable features...I rate its scalability a nine out of ten."
"Some of the automation options are quite good."
"The community and the networking that goes on within that community need improvement. We want to be able to reach out to an SME, and say, "Hey, we are doing it this way. Does that make sense?" Ideally, they come back. and say, "Yes, it does make sense to do it that way. However, if you want to do it this way, then it is a little more efficient." We understand that one solution framework doesn't fit everybody. Depending on the breadth of the data and how broad it is, you may have different models for one over the other."
"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 talked to Control-M guys back in October or November when they had a gathering here in Atlanta. We talked about not being able to go back in history in Helix Control-M for more than two weeks. We submitted a request for enhancement. They told us that they are working on it, and they are thinking of expanding that to 30 days. We would like to see it expand to 90 days, but they are working on it."
"You need to pay for extra features if you need them."
"One feature I would like to include is in the middle of the monitoring domain. In the monitoring domain, if I have to update a number of jobs, the only way to do it is by manually clicking on each job. I would like a feature that allows me to do a mass update in the jobs, which I feel is still lacking."
"I would like to see more audit report templates added, and perhaps more customizability in terms of reporting."
"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."
"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."
"There are some features that don't work as expected."
"The solution needs stability improvement when connecting to the script or trying to find something. It takes a few seconds to perform the function or needs a complete reorganization."
"The interface of Dollar Universe Workload Automation could improve to something more modern. Additionally, Kubernetes is not an option to use in"
More Dollar Universe Workload Automation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews while Dollar Universe Workload Automation is ranked 20th in Workload Automation with 3 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while Dollar Universe Workload Automation is rated 6.6. 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 Dollar Universe Workload Automation writes "An easy-to-use and scalable solution needing some improvement in stability". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence and Automic Workload Automation, whereas Dollar Universe Workload Automation is most compared with Automic Workload Automation, AutoSys Workload Automation and Stonebranch. See our Control-M vs. Dollar Universe Workload Automation 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.
