Shipvane · 4 AE roles
Marco E. · joined Cargolio
Fleetora · first roles in DEControl-M VS IBM Workload Scheduler_
As of 4 November 2026, IBM Workload Scheduler is named by 168 companies and Control-M by 312; Control-M skews to companies under 200 people (27% vs 25%), IBM Workload Scheduler to companies over 1,000 (51% vs 52%).
As of 4 November 2026 · refreshed daily · counts move as websites, DNS and career sites are re-read.
The website-and-DNS footprint is not comparable between a marketing suite and a CRM: Control-M's script and mail records show on hundreds of thousands of small sites, IBM Workload Scheduler rarely leaves a trace outside its own apps. Compare on the job-posting numbers; use the footprint for reach.
- Control-M: 2–200 employees
- 27%
- IBM Workload Scheduler: 2–200 employees
- 25%
- Control-M: 1,000+ employees
- 52%
- IBM Workload Scheduler: 1,000+ employees
- 51%
- Postings per company, 90 days
- 3.3 · 4.3
- Website or DNS footprint
- 0 · 0
Who chooses which
Share of each tool's companies in every segment. "Leans" marks a gap of more than two points.
| Segment | Control-M | share | IBM Workload Scheduler | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-employed | 7 | 2% | 1 | 1% | even |
| 2-10 employees | 18 | 6% | 6 | 4% | Control-M |
| 11-50 employees | 30 | 10% | 13 | 8% | even |
| 51-200 employees | 35 | 11% | 23 | 14% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| 201-500 employees | 35 | 11% | 22 | 13% | even |
| 501-1000 employees | 24 | 8% | 17 | 10% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| 1001-5000 employees | 67 | 21% | 30 | 18% | Control-M |
| 5001-10000 employees | 26 | 8% | 17 | 10% | even |
| 10,001+ employees | 70 | 22% | 39 | 23% | even |
| Segment | Control-M | share | IBM Workload Scheduler | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technology & software | 139 | 45% | 37 | 22% | Control-M |
| Business & finance services | 118 | 38% | 40 | 24% | Control-M |
| Commerce & trade | 12 | 4% | 8 | 5% | even |
| Manufacturing & industry | 12 | 4% | 43 | 26% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| Consumer services & leisure | 7 | 2% | 3 | 2% | even |
| Utilities & infrastructure | 7 | 2% | 9 | 5% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| Health care | 4 | 1% | 2 | 1% | even |
| Media & content | 3 | 1% | 5 | 3% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| Property & construction | 3 | 1% | 3 | 2% | even |
| Automotive | 2 | 1% | 6 | 4% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| Hospitality & travel | 2 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Transport, logistics & rental | 2 | 1% | 4 | 2% | even |
| Public, community & associations | – | – | 7 | 4% | outside top 12 |
| Segment | Control-M | share | IBM Workload Scheduler | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 141 | 45% | 76 | 45% | even |
| France | 36 | 12% | 14 | 8% | Control-M |
| United Kingdom | 20 | 6% | 11 | 7% | even |
| Germany | 14 | 4% | 10 | 6% | even |
| Spain | 11 | 4% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Australia | 10 | 3% | 3 | 2% | even |
| Canada | 10 | 3% | 7 | 4% | even |
| India | 9 | 3% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Brazil | 7 | 2% | 3 | 2% | even |
| Portugal | 7 | 2% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Switzerland | 6 | 2% | 2 | 1% | even |
| Mexico | 4 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Poland | – | – | 5 | 3% | outside top 12 |
| Netherlands | – | – | 4 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Austria | – | – | 3 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Italy | – | – | 3 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Segment | Control-M | share | IBM Workload Scheduler | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IT operations & business systems | 357 | 22% | 161 | 15% | Control-M |
| Software engineering | 344 | 22% | 99 | 9% | Control-M |
| Data & AI | 256 | 16% | 39 | 4% | Control-M |
| Engineering (non-software) | 58 | 4% | 67 | 6% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| Customer service & success | 20 | 1% | 17 | 2% | even |
| manufacturing and production | 17 | 1% | 72 | 7% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| Product, program & project management | 11 | 1% | 52 | 5% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| Finance & accounting | 5 | 0% | 27 | 3% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| General management & consulting | 3 | 0% | 31 | 3% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| Sales | 3 | 0% | 30 | 3% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| Unclassified | 3 | 0% | 6 | 1% | even |
| Administration & office | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | even |
| Legal, compliance & risk | 2 | 0% | 2 | 0% | even |
| Human resources | 1 | 0% | 14 | 1% | even |
| logistics warehouse and transport | 1 | 0% | 26 | 2% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| Quality, safety & environment | 1 | 0% | 42 | 4% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| skilled trades and field service | 1 | 0% | 42 | 4% | IBM Workload Scheduler |
| Education & training | – | – | 12 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Marketing & communications | – | – | 5 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| Design & UX | – | – | 3 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| facilities cleaning and security | – | – | 3 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| procurement and purchasing | – | – | 3 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| real estate and property | – | – | 3 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| Business development & strategy | – | – | 2 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| healthcare support and caregiving | – | – | 2 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| hospitality and food service | – | – | 2 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| healthcare clinical | – | – | 1 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| public safety and protective services | – | – | 1 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| research and science | – | – | 1 | 0% | outside top 12 |
The companies behind each column
Companies using Control-M →
Companies using IBM Workload Scheduler →
workflow engines scheduling ranked →
Quote the sentence with the date and the link. The numbers change daily; the link always shows the current ones.
IBM Workload Scheduler is named by 168 companies in job postings and Control-M by 312; 35 name both. (Breaknorm, 4 November 2026, https://breaknorm.co/compare/control-m-vs-ibm-workload-scheduler)
Read from the source, not self-reported
Every number on this page can be traced to a page we crawled or a posting we read. Full methodology →
- Job postingsRead hourly from career sites. A tool counts when the employer's own text names it as the team's system; both tools can count for one company.
- Website and DNSScripts and embeds on the company's pages, plus SPF, DKIM, MX and CNAME records of its domain that point at the vendor.
- SegmentsCountry, size and industry from the company profile built from its website.
- Not a reviewNo ratings, prices or feature claims. For those, read the vendors.
Control-M vs IBM Workload Scheduler: questions
Which is more used, Control-M or IBM Workload Scheduler?
By companies naming it in their own job postings, Control-M (312) over IBM Workload Scheduler (168). By website-and-DNS footprint, IBM Workload Scheduler (0 vs 0), because its scripts and mail records sit on many small company sites.
Who chooses Control-M?
27% of Control-M companies have 2 to 200 employees, against 25% for IBM Workload Scheduler. 52% of Control-M companies have over 1,000 employees, against 51% for IBM Workload Scheduler.
Do companies run both?
35 companies name both in their postings, usually Control-M in marketing and IBM Workload Scheduler in sales, or during a migration.
Where do these numbers come from?
From the employer's own text in job postings read hourly from career sites, and from scripts found on company websites in our crawl. No vendor data, no surveys.
Get either list your way
The same data as a search, over MCP and the API, as bulk files, or pushed to you as it changes.
Every company on either tool,
with the person who owns it
Filter on Control-M or IBM Workload Scheduler, and get 1,000 records free.