Control-M vs Jitterbit

• Control-M provides an easy-to-use and easy-to-interpret interface for users, with most of the screen options and field names being self-explanatory. The on-screen options provide for a full range of functionality for automating batch production requirements, with multiple options and flexibility.
• The vendor provides Control-M a wide range of utilities for extracting information from the dataset and providing with a minimal amount of training required for use.
• As the systems programmer for Control-M on the mainframe, the ease of installation is one of the nicest features. The installation is panel driven and can be used by a relatively inexperienced technician to install successfully in a matter of several hours.
• Again, as the systems programmer, I appreciate the level of expertise of the technical support personnel. Over the past 20+ years, I have come to know them well and find them to be knowledgeable and willing to provide assistance for any and all queries.
• The developers have always been willing to listen to requests for new functionality and enhancements to existing functionality and are working to have the same type of functionality across all platforms.
• We are a large mainframe shop, still heavily dependent on mainframes to support and develop new software for the mainframe.
• We have worked closely with BMC to participate in the beta testing program and have had the opportunity to have an impact on software development.

Read full review

• UI is super easy to understand with a low learning curve so admins can figure it out and maintain it without breaking anything.
• It's FREE! There's a paid version too but I like that you can use most of the features for free and they're not pushy with buying.
• There's a great user community that you can google and ask any questions. Most problems I've encountered have been posted and answered already.

Read full review

• The reporting provided with Control-M could have more functionality, Many users end up creating their own reporting based on the Control-M DB. I believe BMC are addressing this.
• Within the Advanced File Transfer (AFT) it would be useful to have an integrated FT server and not rely on the underlying SSH.
• All batch schedulers have issues with fully automating tasks in a Windows environment and Control-M is no exception. Userids and profiles are harder concepts to deal with in the Windows world but BMC are doing their best to address this and Control-M would be better at handling these scenarios than the alternative products.

Read full review

• Migrating operations from QA to Production work well for initial deployment, however, when migrating an update to an existing job to production, sometimes certain project items are duplicated. This is not the end of the world... the duplicates can be removed, but would be nice if it was not required.
• I have not found a way to trap under-the-covers SOAP errors (for example, when a query you are running against Salesforce takes too long). You get a warning error in the operation log that the job only pulled a "partial" file, but it does not fail.

Read full review

• While I cannot share specific numbers I can say that Control-M has provided a level of scheduling and integration over the system it replaced that has increased productivity and increased reliably in our system. It has reduced the number of hours spent on monitoring and troubleshooting jobs, on a per job basis.

Read full review

• The time it takes to connect systems has reduced by orders of magnitude. Previously, we would custom-develop connectors between various systems and they would all be managed by different vendors. With Jitterbit speed-to-deploy and the efficiency gained by managing all connections in one dashboard has been the greatest piece of the ROI.

Read full review