We performed a comparison between Control-M and IBM Workload Automation based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Control-M offers several valuable features such as Managed File Transfer, credentials vault, integration capabilities, Role-Based Administration, file transfer integration, collaboration dashboard, reporting, workload archiving, and forecasting. IBM Workload Automation provides user-requested features, job triggering in multiple nodes, pre-scheduling, system stability, and efficient batch application management.
Based on the reviews, Control-M could enhance its microservices and API integration, fix bugs in the web interface, improve reporting capabilities, streamline the upgrade process, and integrate better with third-party tools. IBM Workload Automation could benefit from improvements in performance, job dependencies, stability, and integration with new technologies.
Service and Support: The customer service for Control-M has received both positive and negative feedback. Some customers appreciate the quick and knowledgeable support team, while others believe that support can be sluggish. IBM Workload Automation is renowned for its exceptional technical support, although there may be difficulties in pinpointing the origins of specific problems.
Ease of Deployment: Control-M is considered to be uncomplicated and easy to deploy, although there might be a learning curve. The duration of the setup can vary depending on the complexity involved. IBM Workload Automation may pose difficulties for users who are not familiar with IBM tools. However, with proper assistance, the setup becomes relatively simple. Additionally, agent-based installations can be deployed quickly.
Pricing: The cost of setting up Control-M is determined by the number of jobs or endpoints, which may be perplexing and costly for certain users. IBM Workload Automation's pricing is based on the customer's contract and switching to a per job license can lead to savings. The number of licenses needed for IBM Workload Automation can differ based on usage.
ROI: Control-M offers a notable return on investment due to its cost reduction, enhanced efficiency, automated batch scheduling, and decreased reliance on manual tasks. IBM Workload Automation's ROI is uncertain and necessitates additional investigation and analysis.
Comparison Results: Control-M is the preferred product when compared to IBM Workload Automation. Control-M is highly praised for its simple setup process, ease of maintenance, and efficient automation abilities. Users appreciate the Managed File Transfer feature, credentials vault, integration capabilities, and Role-Based Administration offered by Control-M. Additionally, Control-M provides valuable features like scheduling, easy configuration, and a user-friendly web interface.
"The most valuable feature is the reporting function. It allows us to pull up reports for specific information that the end-users are looking for."
"The integration with ServiceNow is good. When a job ends and there are problems with it, we automatically open an incident in this platform, and the number of the incident is forwarded to Control-M. This means that we have a record of it with the log of the job."
"The multiple scheduling options allow you to do anything you want, whenever you want, and however you want. You can easily be in control when things happen."
"First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate."
"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 can do anything that I need. We do real-time jobs. We also do jobs that have to run at certain times. I have not been presented with a scheduling need that I was not able to do. It is very flexible and dynamic."
"We have a team called pro-mon and they monitor all the jobs for us. A single view for them makes it easy for them to monitor things."
"It has certainly helped speed things up."
"Jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes."
"The most important feature is the creation of folders. It's a really great feature because you can organize the process with naming conventions."
"Jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes."
"The support from Cisco is very good. I was with them as a company for 40 years"
"The whole product is valuable because it is a tool for batch automation."
"Provides a robust, full spectrum enterprise-wide WLA platform."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The technical support is great, the product is easy-to-use, and it is stable."
"They can give more predefined plug-ins so that we don't have to create them."
"In general, it is a very good product, and we are very happy with it. It meets all of our expectations."
"The infrastructure updates could use improvement. Some of the previous updates that we have run to get to version nineteen were troublesome. So, a more seamless upgrade path for the infrastructure components would be useful. I don't know if they have replaced that in version 20 or if version 20 has an easier path, but I would like to see the upgrade from one version to the next version be a little smoother."
"You need to pay for extra features if you need them."
"Integration with some applications and platforms is complex and requires development. We have done some integration with the application integrator, but it was more like a manual solution. This is an area that can be improved."
"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."
"The infrastructure could be improved."
"It is a very strong product, but the reporting could be better."
"The configuration of IBM Workload Automation has some challenges. We have a difficult time customizing it, but it is similar to other solutions."
"It is missing some features and can improve in areas where the competition is somewhat better like linking job dependencies."
"The schedule refreshes daily and that's a challenge for us."
"The performance of the previous versions could be better."
"Scalability-wise, it can be a little bit challenging."
"It should support other schedulers that aren't IBM products."
"This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly."
"It would be helpful to have a mobile app that could be used to follow the job schedule."
Control-M is ranked 1st in Workload Automation with 110 reviews while IBM Workload Automation is ranked 13th in Workload Automation with 28 reviews. Control-M is rated 8.8, while IBM Workload Automation 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 IBM Workload Automation writes "With an easy setup phase in place, agent-based installation can be done in minutes". Control-M is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, Rocket Zena, ESP Workload Automation Intelligence, Automic Workload Automation and Redwood RunMyJobs, whereas IBM Workload Automation is most compared with AutoSys Workload Automation, HCL Workload Automation, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Tidal by Redwood and BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager. See our Control-M vs. IBM 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.
