We performed a comparison between Control-M and IBM Sterling File Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The feature we use most in Control-M is related to the file transfer module. It is quite advanced compared to the other tools like Automate, etc. The new version which has come of same MFT has a lot of advanced features which makes it very easy to work with. There is less need for written programs and more GUI-based stuff."
"We are now able to deliver data to our data warehouses and dashboards promptly."
"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."
"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."
"It is very easy to use. The HA feature is also very good."
"The best part about this product is that it has a lot of features. Control-M doesn't limit us and we can use it for a lot of things."
"First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate."
"Speeds up processes and automated tasks."
"Very high functionality with the ability to plug in your own code."
"It offers easy utilization of resources for smooth transfers."
"I have found almost all the features valuable."
"The most valuable aspect is that it has good functionality."
"It's highly configurable, there is no need for standalone scripting."
"This product has been a leader in the field of secure file exchange."
"The biggest improvement they could have is better QA testing before releases come out the door."
"Sometimes, with technical support, they will take feedback, but you don't know where that feedback goes or if it proceeds along in the thought process."
"A Control-M on-prem license is based on the number of jobs, which is the number of tasks a particular customer wants to have. These tasks have to be run within 24 hours window. For example, if you have a license for 100 jobs, you can run a maximum of 100 jobs in a 24-hour window. If your operations could not run 10 jobs, and they ran only 90 jobs, they just carry over to the next day, but the next day, they will have 110 jobs. Control-M asks you to buy those 10 more licenses because you were out of compliance in terms of the number of licenses. This is something that needs to be indicated in Control-M GUI so that customers know the number of licenses they're going to use in this time window. Their support and documentation should be improved. I am not that satisfied with their customer support. Sometimes, they don't have the answers. Their documentation is very poor. It is not well written, and it is not in a very logical manner. You can use it on Unix, Linux, Windows, and AIX, but it needs some improvement on iSeries. It needs a built-in mechanism inside the system to give you an option to restore from the last point of failure. If a process crashes, the Control-M needs to have a mechanism in iSeries where the process can be restored from the last point of failure."
"An issue we have run into in our lower environments is that Control-M can log you out frequently."
"The stability of Control-M has Not been great. A big thing we've been trying to work on with BMC is observability. Modern applications should be observable and resilient, but we're finding that sometimes Control-M is not very resilient and many times Control-M is not very observable."
"The main area that could be improved would be documentation, just like every other software product out there!"
"There's a lot of room for improvement and I think it can be more user-friendly."
"It has a slight issue with daylight savings time while advancing the clock in the Spring."
"IBM is advising not to use the IT translate anymore but this is going to be an extra cost to the customer to use the alternative."
"Not a ten because it's a bit complex, not so simple. It's one product but there are many screens."
"Too many features; UI is not good."
"The admin console needs some work."
"I would like to see auto-deployment without service disruptions."
"The API capabilities could be expanded to make integration more versatile."
Control-M is ranked 2nd in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 110 reviews while IBM Sterling File Gateway is ranked 3rd in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 6 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while IBM Sterling File Gateway is rated 7.4. 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 IBM Sterling File Gateway writes "Easy to use with good validation and monitoring of the file transfer". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, IBM Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, Automic Workload Automation and ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, whereas IBM Sterling File Gateway is most compared with MOVEit, Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct, Aspera Managed File Transfer, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer and MessageWay. See our Control-M vs. IBM Sterling File Gateway report.
See our list of best Managed File Transfer (MFT) vendors.
We monitor all Managed File Transfer (MFT) 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.
