OpenText SiteScope's initial setup is generally described as straightforward, easy, and quick, often completed within hours. While initial deployment is manageable, challenges might arise with ongoing management, hardening, and monitor provisioning, particularly when customization is needed. Installations might require administrative server access, and upgrading can be complex. Despite potential challenges, many find it simple to configure, teach colleagues, and achieve high reliability without relying on an external database.

OpenText SiteScope's customer service and support is mixed. Users report varied experiences, with some finding the support team responsive and helpful, rating it well, while others encounter slow response times and insufficient expertise. Documentation quality receives positive mentions. Some users rely on forums or self-diagnosis due to perceived inefficiencies. Support satisfaction depends on the complexity of issues, with higher escalation levels offering better assistance. Ratings fluctuate from satisfactory to needing improvement, based on specific cases.

Control-M's support is efficient and knowledgeable, with users appreciating available resources despite occasional delays in complex cases.

Most choose On-premises for Control-M, with many using Hybrid Cloud, fewer opting for Public, and some for Private Cloud.

Control-M is primarily used on Microsoft Azure and AWS, with Azure slightly preferred, though AWS remains competitive.

Control-M's setup is generally easy with excellent support, though complexity can arise in larger, customized environments.

<p>OpenText SiteScope integrates with monitoring tools such as AppDynamics and supports multiple system metrics monitors. It uses template-based configuration for automation and simple deployment with protocols like NetBios, SSH, and WMI. It removes the need for external databases with a built-in flat file database and does not require agent installation, easing server monitoring. Limitations include cloud integration, scalability, and integration with service management tools, with challenges in remote monitoring security.</p>

Many find OpenText SiteScope scalable, handling tasks across numerous servers with ease. Some mention needing improved scalability options besides horizontal growth. While some haven't encountered limits, others note constraints tied to infrastructure. Users range from support engineers to monitoring teams. OpenText SiteScope's grouping feature enhances manageability. It's utilized in sectors like banking and telecom for medium to large enterprises, maintaining performance under high demand despite some concerns about scalability enhancements.

<p>OpenText SiteScope integrates seamlessly with various monitoring tools including AppDynamics and offers multiple out-of-the-box monitors for essential system components like CPU, Disk, Memory, and NICs.</p>
<p>It features a flexible architecture that allows users to run scripts directly out of the box, facilitating easy customization and automation of monitoring configurations.</p>
<p>OpenText SiteScope supports swift and simple setup processes, capable of monitoring devices leveraging common protocols such as NetBIOS, SSH, WMI, and SNMP, making it effective for a variety of hardware environments.</p>
<p>The tool excels in infrastructure monitoring and has built-in capabilities for monitoring over 100 technologies using pre-configured templates which minimize the need for extensive manual setups.</p>
<p>It does not require agents to be installed on servers, which is particularly beneficial for monitoring servers that are out of administrative control, thereby enhancing the capability to monitor server availability and resources effectively without local server access.</p>

Most users are deploying OpenText SiteScope on-premises, indicating a preference for on-site infrastructure. One entity mentioned utilizing a private cloud, while another opted for a hybrid cloud model.

Users advise others to consider their environment and requirements before deploying OpenText SiteScope. They emphasize the importance of using a clear dashboard for data visualization and note the tool's capabilities for monitoring tasks. It's suggested to collaborate with security teams for smooth server access. Users recommend exploring trial versions and resources like forums for better understanding. They highlight the tool's ease of use, customizable options, and the necessity of supplementary monitoring solutions alongside OpenText SiteScope.

Control-M automates batch processes and schedules tasks across environments, enhancing efficiency and centralizing monitoring in enterprise operations.

OpenText SiteScope's improvements should focus on simplifying setup, refining dashboards, and enhancing integration capabilities. Its licensing structure is considered costly and complicated. The platform should enhance scalability, offer comprehensive transaction tracking, and support new technologies like Kubernetes. API functionality and out-of-the-box cloud integrations require enhancement. Uniform interfaces, better support, and improved documentation are necessary. Agentless monitoring complicates remote monitoring due to multiple open firewall ports. A more reliable database repository instead of log repository is recommended.

OpenText SiteScope is generally described as stable by many, yet some users face issues such as false alerts and compatibility with Windows servers via SSH. A few mention memory leak concerns in earlier versions, rectified by automatic recycling. Several praise its performance without bugs or crashes, while some highlight occasional stability challenges in complex environments. Despite specific hurdles, many rate its stability highly, considering it among the more robust options available in its portfolio.

Control-M scales effectively, supporting numerous jobs and users, with minor performance issues often related to server capacity or configuration.

Valuable features of OpenText SiteScope include agentless monitoring, comprehensive toolsets for infrastructure monitoring, seamless integration with other tools, and user-friendly management. Users appreciate its scalability, ease of deployment, and flexibility in creating custom monitors. It offers a range of ready-made templates, robust alerting, and extensive API support. SiteScope's ability to monitor various protocols and technologies without additional installations is highly regarded, providing detailed insights into system health and performance.

<p>Users evaluated HP OM, BMC, IBM, Splunk, Gomez, and Nagios over OpenText SiteScope. They favored HP for comprehensive monitoring across technologies and because it aligned with requirements. Some preferred SiteScope for agentless monitoring with support and discounts from HP. Although migrating to Nagios for easier setup, users note it only runs on Unix. SiteScope runs on both Unix and Windows, offering broader compatibility.</p>

Users have been using OpenText SiteScope for a range of approximately two to sixteen years.

Organizations primarily use OpenText SiteScope for infrastructure and application performance monitoring. It provides agentless monitoring of system resources, network devices, database queries, and ensures application availability. Many use its features to monitor servers, logs, and network bandwidth, leveraging pre-defined templates for databases, Active Directory, and other environments. It plays a crucial role in managing environments in sectors like healthcare and government, assisting in proactive performance management and alerting.

Control-M enhances enterprise workload automation with user-friendly GUI, cross-platform integration, advanced scheduling, and robust security measures.

OpenText SiteScope aids organizations by ensuring server-dependent applications remain operational, supporting quick customer requirement fulfillment. It offers proactive monitoring, network perimeter deployment for end-user service availability perspectives, and agentless monitoring for easier management. Deployment flexibility allows custom monitoring and efficient threshold configuration. Integrated with tools, it provides comprehensive service insights. Users benefit from efficient task scheduling, infrastructure health tracking, and downtime reduction by pinpointing issues in database, network, or web services while utilizing single-dashboard management.

Control-M is praised for its robust automation, requiring planning, community support, training, and integration with modern tools.

{"quote":"Monitoring should be done by someone knowledgeable about the system.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Good coding skills are essential, as well as utilizing open-source codes.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"New users should have a comprehensive understanding of how BMC and Control-M operate.","score":"9"}

Control-M needs better analysis, reporting, integration, cost structure, documentation, UI, stability, offline mode, and cloud support.

{"quote":"The downtime is higher compared to AWS.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"2"}

{"quote":"The workflow is much easier compared to the ACS services we were using.","quality_score":"9","sentiment_score":"8"}

{"quote":"The accuracy rate is about 80% to 85%.","quality_score":"7","sentiment_score":"5"}

Control-M has been used by users for periods ranging from a few months to over 30 years.

Control-M users gain efficiency, reduce costs, streamline operations, and see ROI within years, despite high initial investment.

4

Control-M was preferred for its integration, ease of use, advanced features, and user-friendly interface over competitors.

Control-M is highly reliable and stable, efficiently handling tasks with minimal disruptions and resolving issues quickly with patches.

Control-M is considered costly but valued, with pricing based on job execution, suiting larger enterprises needing extensive automation.

Control-M enhances efficiency by automating processes, reducing errors, improving SLA performance, and empowering users with self-service capabilities.

7.5

3.5

{"quote":"The support is adequate through online resources.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Solutions are available on the web.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Its cost is very low.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"As the workload on Control-M increases, its scalability is much higher.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Control-M scales well with the enterprise's growth.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"The accuracy rate is about 80% to 85%.","score":"6"}

{"quote":"The endpoint sometimes gets reset automatically.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Indexing and databasing are more challenging.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"The downtime is higher compared to AWS.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"My Ops team faces certain problems that need addressing.","score":"6"}

{"quote":"There should be an automation system for developers to set it up more easily and quickly.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"They should have a proper integration method that clearly defines the workflow.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Automation is more advanced, deployment is fast, and version control has been simplified.","score":"10"}

{"quote":"The workflow is much easier compared to the ACS services we were using.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"DevOps and Ops teams work collaboratively with it, enhancing its efficiency.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"The job and coding are easier.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Control-M is a bit faster compared to other solutions.","score":"8"}

I use Control-M for ACS and Azure integration, facilitating data processing and insights with OpenAI. Its speed and simplified workflow enhance efficiency over previous AWS solutions. However, better workflow integration and automation for developers are needed for improvement.

Many users previously used scheduling tools like IBM TWS, CA-7, ESP, and manual processes. Some utilized homemade or ad hoc solutions. They switched due to Control-M's advanced functionality, ease of use, integration capabilities, and centralized management across enterprise environments. Additionally, its ability to handle diverse systems, job automation, and workflow orchestration offered significant improvements over existing tools like SAP Scheduler, Windows Task Scheduler, Broadcom, and Dollar Universe.

<p>Control-M surpasses its competitors by offering robust workflow automation, seamless integration, and enhanced visibility, empowering organizations with efficient task scheduling and improved operational efficiency, making it a preferred choice for comprehensive enterprise workload management.</p>

Control-M pricing is generally viewed as high but justified by its feature-rich capabilities. Larger enterprises find its cost manageable due to its scalability and efficiency in automating complex workflows. Pricing models are primarily job-based, and additional modules can incur extra charges. Smaller businesses often find it too expensive, especially with complex licensing structures. Negotiating with account managers may yield discounts, but detailed cost evaluations are crucial to optimize its value relative to business needs.

<p>Control-M reporting needs significant improvement, including enhanced customizability and the ability to create enterprise-level reports and dashboards.</p><p>The documentation and support provided by BMC require enhancements for better clarity and user guidance.</p><p>There are scalability concerns involving job management and license compliance that increase operational complexity and costs.</p><p>Control-M's integration with third-party tools and cloud services lacks flexibility, complicating the interoperability process.</p><p>The upgrade and installation processes for Control-M are complex, calling for more streamlined and efficient methods.</p>

Technical support is generally strong, with many users rating it highly for responsiveness and expertise. While some report minor issues, such as initial ticket troubleshooting delays or documentation clarity, many appreciate 24/7 availability and quick resolutions. The AMIGO program and integrated guides are seen as valuable resources. However, users occasionally find challenges with log submissions and a lack of comprehensive environment-level support. Customer service usually receives favorable ratings for efficiency and promptness.

Implementations for Control-M involve both vendor and internal teams. Some users manage it in-house while others rely on external expertise. Vendors like VPMA, Cetan Corp, and Ogchee contribute positively, though experiences vary. BMC's AMIGO program is frequently utilized. Some users highlight challenges with planning and coordination, but many express satisfaction with knowledgeable vendor teams and effective collaboration. Implementations can be straightforward, yet some require detailed analysis and design phases for successful deployment.

<p>Control-M facilitates seamless automation of batch workflows, centralizing monitoring and updates. It enhances efficiencies through predictive analytics and event-driven automation. Batch Impact Manager alerts on SLA breaches, while the Advanced File Transfer feature simplifies secure exchanges. Control-M integrates with third-party apps, increasing adaptability but requires improved reporting, integration, documentation, scalability, and support. Limitations in these areas highlight potential challenges for tech buyers.</p>

Initial setup experiences with Control-M vary, with many finding it straightforward and easy, thanks to reliable documentation and guides. Users appreciate its panel-driven installation and migration tools. While some faced complexities, especially when integrating with other applications, most found deploying Control-M manageable, using it on-premises or on the cloud. Challenges included understanding complex environments and integrating with extensive scripts, but technical support and thorough preparation often smoothed the process.

Control-M's customer service and support are rated between 8 and 10 out of 10.

Control-M delivers significant ROI by reducing manual tasks and improving efficiency and resource allocation. Users experience cost savings and enhanced service levels, noting reduced operational costs and downtime. Automation capabilities lead to faster issue resolution and substantial man-hour savings. Centralized control and integration enhance workflow management, resulting in improved data processes and real-time monitoring. Enterprises report stronger performance and profitability by leveraging Control-M's extensive features, leading to business process optimization and increased cost efficiency.

Many users adopt Microsoft Azure or Amazon Web Services (AWS) for Control-M, with a preference for Azure. This inclination is evident as Azure is mentioned by a majority compared to AWS, indicating its considerable appeal among users. While both AWS and Azure are popular choices, Azure receives slightly more attention, showcasing its significant role in hosting Control-M. The selection hinges on diverse factors, reflecting varied preferences.

Users advise others to carefully plan hardware setup focusing on *nix OS, utilize the various features available, and consider it for scalability and stability. The expense is justified if extensively used. Ensuring seamless integration with existing systems is crucial. Control-M is praised for ease of use, stability, and support. Users highlight the importance of adhering to best practices, testing its suitability through proofs of concept, and leveraging the community resources for additional insights and assistance.

Most users implement Control-M on-premises as evidenced by the majority opting for this setup. A smaller number utilize Hybrid Cloud or Public Cloud configurations, while a few select Private Cloud. This indicates a strong preference for traditional on-premises deployment among users, interspersed with a minority leveraging cloud-based options in varying capacities.

Control-M exhibits high stability across multiple environments. Many users report minimal issues, with most challenges stemming from external factors like infrastructure or network configurations. Patches and updates by BMC improve its robustness. Instances of disruptions are rare, and stability has been enhanced over recent versions. Users appreciate its reliable performance in heavy workloads. The system runs continuously without major downtime, demonstrating exceptional dependability and efficiency for business operations.

Control-M users highlight the need for improved reporting tools and data analysis capabilities beyond simple string matching. They request more flexibility in report customization and integration with various applications like ITSM tools. Upgrades and patch processes should be smoother, while adaptive licensing models are demanded to make it more affordable. Users also seek enhancements in the user interface, API integrations, real-time monitoring, and AI features for automated job scheduling and error management.

Control-M offers valuable features like cross-platform integration, high automation, user-friendly GUI, and efficient job scheduling. It supports integration with various third-party applications such as SAP, Informatica, and databases, enhancing operational efficiency. Users appreciate the seamless orchestration of workflows and data pipelines, effective error reporting, and monitoring capabilities. The Self-Service and Managed File Transfer features reduce manual intervention, ensuring timely processes. Control-M's role-based administration and compatibility with modern technologies further boost productivity.

Control-M is praised for scalability, often handling extensive operations well, with many users experiencing no issues. Organizations report it adapts to growth and can manage numerous jobs efficiently. Some users note the need for proper server management to avoid potential issues, particularly in high-load scenarios. Overall, users highlight its flexibility and ease of scaling, accommodating various needs across diverse environments with minimal concerns. Cost considerations are occasionally mentioned as a factor.

Users have engaged with Control-M for a duration ranging from a few months to over 30 years.

<p>Control-M automates batch jobs and file transfers, simplifying complex workflows and reducing manual work.</p>

<p>It offers robust monitoring capabilities that notify teams immediately when processes fail, improving response times and reliability.</p>

<p>Control-M integrates with a range of technologies and platforms, including Linux, Windows, and various cloud services, facilitating multifaceted software and hardware environments management.</p>

<p>BMC's Batch Impact Manager helps preemptively address potential delays, safeguarding against SLA violations and enhancing operational predictability.</p>

<p>Control-M enables dynamic workload management, allowing users to orchestrate and monitor tasks across different systems from a single point of control.</p>

Organizations utilize Control-M primarily for automating batch job scheduling and processing. It is employed across various platforms including mainframe, SAP, and cloud services like AWS and Azure. Its functionalities span enterprise workload automation, file transfers, data integration, and error monitoring. Many organizations deploy it to streamline financial, payroll, and IT operations, enabling them to implement complex workflows, enhance processing speed, and maintain SLAs efficiently.

Users evaluated IBM TWS, UC4, Autosys, Redwood, CA Workload Automation, Computer Associates, Cisco, Azure Batch, Apache Airflow, AWS Batch, DAC, Matillion, JAMS, ActiveBatch, and SAP tools before selecting Control-M. Factors influencing their choice included functionality, ease of use, integration capabilities, and pricing. Some found Control-M superior in enterprise capability and had positive past experiences. A few users noted alternatives being less user-friendly or lacking advanced features like integration.

Control-M boosts organizations by speeding up batch processes through automation, reducing manual errors, and providing visibility via a central dashboard. It integrates with applications, supports proactive problem solving, and enhances efficiency with features like role-based administration. It minimizes resource costs, ensures timely outputs, and improves SLAs, making job scheduling seamless and meeting modern operations' needs. Cloud compatibilities and modular flexibility empower users with control, supporting data workflows and application management smoothly.

8.55

Many companies switched to Check Point Harmony Endpoint for better security, cost, and integration compared to previous solutions.

{"quote":"We pay a few hundreds of thousands of dollars mostly for support annually.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"5"}

6.35

{"quote":"We needed between two to six people for deployment.","quality_score":"6","sentiment_score":"5"}

{"quote":"Before Broadcom, VMware's support was an eight or ten out of ten. Now, with Broadcom's management, I would rate it a three out of ten.","quality_score":"7","sentiment_score":"3"}

Organizations successfully implemented Check Point Harmony Endpoint, aided by vendor expertise and efficient support, leading to high satisfaction.

{"quote":"The scalability is ten out of ten.","quality_score":"5","sentiment_score":"8"}

{"quote":"The handling of support has changed, and Broadcom appears more interested in profitability than in customer satisfaction.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Even after Broadcom's acquisition, VMware vSphere Foundation remains a ten out of ten in terms of product quality.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Before Broadcom, VMware's support was an eight or ten out of ten. Now, with Broadcom's management, I would rate it a three out of ten.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"3"}

5.0

{"quote":"Even after Broadcom's acquisition, VMware vSphere Foundation remains a ten out of ten in terms of product quality.","quality_score":"10","sentiment_score":"10"}

{"quote":"It improves recoverability and scalability.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Server consolidation is one return on investment where we can use one server for multiple workloads.","score":"8"}

5.25

10

Most Check Point Harmony Endpoint users prefer Amazon Web Services, followed by Microsoft Azure and diverse other platforms.

Check Point Harmony Endpoint deployment shows varied preferences: on-premises favored, followed by public cloud, then private and hybrid cloud.

{"quote":"The scalability is ten out of ten.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"VMware vSphere Foundation has a good level of third-party provider integration capabilities.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"The return on investment is high because we can maximize the use of one server for multiple workloads.","score":"9"}