Adobe Experience Manager vs Microsoft Office SharePoint Server comparison

"The integration of customer behavior and website setup is impressive."

"Adobe Experience Manager is quite a powerful product that you can use to design files and export them."

"I like the native applications such as Adobe Target, Adobe Analytics, and Adobe Experience Platform. Because of these, it's very easy to connect and obtain reports on how my website is doing, how many have visited it, how frequently, etc. The multiple publisher concept is one of the best parts of this solution."

"It is easy to learn. You don't need to be an advanced Java developer."

"Adobe Experience Manager is a content management system, and we use it to create and manage a website."

"It's a complete package. You don't need to look elsewhere for digital marketing."

"The most valuable features of Adobe Experience Manager include its capability to manage content and create reusable fragments."

"If you want to use content in a mobile application and you want the content in some other application, you can simply expose it from the CMS to different clients or different systems. It's easy. On top of that, the technology underlying AEM is open-source and is very powerful like Apache Sling and JCR."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is the Communication Site."

"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the fact that it doesn't require coding. You just need to configure it. You don't need to code before getting something running. It makes it very fast."

"The collaboration, the ability for multiple users to work on a single document."

"What I appreciate most about Microsoft Office SharePoint Server is how it centralizes information and collaboration in one place."

"The most valuable feature is that it is very usable. I can navigate it, I can have a media call, I can have a call with my project team, so we can chat with every team kind of like WhatsApp. Any time there are projects or other things, we can chat in a secure way. It's automation-specific secure."

"The solution's most valuable features is its document management. It allows sharing with external users and integrates well with Office apps and Microsoft Flow."

"The forms aspect of the solution, for example, the creation of surveys, is its most valuable aspect."

"The software is friendly to use for mixing data and analyzing it."

"Adobe Experience Manager could improve by allowing the reuse of components like a progress bar across multiple pages to make the development process more efficient."

"Adobe's technical support is so-so."

"There is a feature missing where if content is created on the UAT environment and needs to be transferred or synced to the production environment, there is no direct way of doing the sync."

"Adobe Experience Manager needs more optimization. The frequency of components where we have vitals of a page or an app needs to be optimized because these are heavy Java codes along with some AEM developments."

"The solution's pricing and stability could be improved."

"Programming model could be improved, it's a monolithic solution."

"In comparison to other CMS products, Adobe Experience Manager is missing some capabilities such as proper versioning or a better versioning system and backend connectivity. If something is deleted in AEM, the user cannot recover it. You have to call technical support, and they will need to recover the whole instance. So, it's really difficult. For example, if you delete a page, you cannot recover it. There should be an option to recover it. In AEM, you have to go to the previous state of the instance itself or the virtual machine, and you have to restore everything, which is not good."

"I haven't seen any areas for improvement in Adobe Experience Manager as it's a full-fledged CMS tool, and Adobe is already working on enhancements for the solution. Adobe is working to make Adobe Experience Manager more valuable and easier to use for any user, even non-technical ones, through multiple components and templates. Day by day, Adobe provides the latest update to Adobe Experience Manager, and if my team needs any particular change, it just needs to be reported to the Adobe team. As Adobe Experience Manager has a broad scope and a lot of use cases and features, it's a solution that requires some time and effort from you in terms of learning, especially if you're implementing it for different clients, which could be an area for improvement."

"Workflows could be simplified."

"I would like to see the integration with Teams reinforced."

"The product is behind in development and lacks some features."

"The product could be improved by accommodating different technologies, particularly integration."

"The areas around security, such as protection, need to be included."

"I would like to see more Agile techniques and seamless integration with other applications."

"Searching information internally in Microsoft Office SharePoint Server could be better because when we get a lot of information, it is difficult to find."

"The search feature needs improvement. I can never find the information I need when I use it."

"There's a free trial for one month for Adobe Experience Manager, which you can use for learning purposes, then, after the trial period, you'll need to purchase the license. Adobe offers a few plans for Adobe Experience Manager, but I'm unaware of how much my company is paying."

"Users have to pay a yearly licensing fee to use the solution, which is highly-priced."

"It's a costly solution. I would rate the price at two out of five on a scale from one to five, where one is the most expensive and five is the most competitive."

"It's really costly."

"Pricing plans may be flexible depending on volume usage and your corporate relationship with Microsoft."

"It can be expensive for on-premises deployments, especially when you have to support SQL Server as your backend database. That's where the cost comes into play. SQL Server has its own licensing, which Microsoft keeps on changing. Therefore, it can become costly. In the earlier versions of SharePoint, version 2007 or 2010, they had an express version where the SQL Server licensing was free. It wasn't like a full-blown SharePoint. It was only a slimmed-down version. It used to be whatever your hardware costs. You would install the free software and work with it, but you were very limited in what you could do in SharePoint. If you wanted the SharePoint Enterprise Server with all the bells and whistles, then you had to pay more to get the SQL Server license based on the number of users or servers. The subscription model is different for cloud deployments. Licensing is per user and per month. The cost also depends on the storage required. If you have a lot of sites or documents, then you need to expand it based on your needs."

"There are some aggressive discounts offered by Microsoft for organizations that are not for profit, which we are, and it makes it quite attractive to consider."

"One of the reasons why we don't recommend the cloud version of SharePoint is the cost. With the on premise version, you pay for the license once. For the cloud version, there is a recurring fee. It is very expensive. They expect everyone to pay $20 or $30 per user per month."