Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Adobe Web Experience Management vs IFS Cloud Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 4, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Adobe Web Experience Manage...
Ranking in Customer Experience Management
15th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IFS Cloud Platform
Ranking in Customer Experience Management
8th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
CRM (20th), Field Service Management (1st), Help Desk Software (12th), ERP (12th), Activity Based Costing Software (6th), Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) (2nd), Local Government CRM (8th), IT Asset Management (10th), IT Service Management (ITSM) (10th), License Management (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Customer Experience Management category, the mindshare of Adobe Web Experience Management is 1.8%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IFS Cloud Platform is 2.6%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Customer Experience Management
 

Featured Reviews

Syed Hasan - PeerSpot reviewer
It has a lot of features, and it is very easy to learn, use, integrate, and manage
It would be better if it also supports some styling. Currently, whenever we have to do design for a particular client according to their brand strategy, it takes a good amount of effort. Adobe never focuses on this area. They say that you design your pages, templates, etc. If they can define common components or a common section of the style sheet so that if you want to have a button by default, you can go and just mention the specifications, such as the color code, and those specifications are automatically followed across the whole site or multiple sites according to the brand strategy. Such functionality will be helpful because currently, it takes a lot of effort to manage them separately. They can increase the number of components in terms of combinations. For example, if I take an image and a text component, currently, Adobe gives you just an image and text component. It should provide multiple versions, such as image, text, and video. That's because, on most of the sites, clients always come up with this combination. They want to have a video. They want to have an image, and they want to have some text. There could be options to have any of the following combinations: * The image on the left, the video on the right, and the text at the bottom. * The image on the left, the video on the right, and the text at the top. * The image in the center, the video on top, and the text at the bottom. If they can come up with such permutations and combinations, it will make the work easier. It will help us in putting out the site in a faster way, instead of us having to do the regular development every time. They can come up with some out-of-the-box components to help you drag and drop a video that will be displayed in a particular player. Currently, some of the features are not available, and we have to customize them. They can look into the top video players that are being used by most of the end-users from a location and provide out-of-the-box components. They can look into the features of YouTube, Vimeo, and other top players.
Brendan Fisher - PeerSpot reviewer
Robust, customizable, and modern
IFS is a very large and complex software, and implementation of IFS can be challenging and may lead to a difficult lengthy project. It can take between 12 and 24 months in some cases to deploy. I have found that not all clients are fully aware of how big the task is that they're undertaking when they make a decision to move to software like this. Companies need to be more aware of the complexity of an ERP implementation project and while I fully recommend moving to IFS, it is not easy and does require business change when adopting an ERP solution. New features are a difficult ask - I work across multiple industries and everyone would probably choose a different feature. Maybe BIM in Construction or Customs link-ups for importers/exporters.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The templates and components that come out of the box are very helpful, especially in terms of the content fragments and experience fragments. Every client would like to have some templates and components, and they would like to cut down the effort of having to create every component that's customized. So, they try to use them out of the box. Other than that, the user roles and permissions workflows, third-party integrations, and system integration are the features that are very important."
"Good content and digital management capabilities."
"IFS has been completely rebuilt, modernized, and cloud-based so we don't need bulky software installations."
"The most valuable features of IFS Applications are their intuitiveness and ease of use. The navigations are also straightforward, which makes it easy to train users. The feedback I always receive is that it is very user-friendly."
"One of our favorite features is the "Info-Zone", which provides operational intelligence in flight and in context to guide both business users and support teams to productivity."
"The financial posting controls are quite handy. The user interface is really friendly, highly flexible, and pretty intuitive for end users."
"I like the connectivity and interfaces. In V10, it's easy to modify the interfaces and layouts, but it's becoming more complicated in the cloud. IFS is excellent at asset maintenance and incident management. They have specialized modules for IFS that cover incident and asset management and everything else connected to finance. The reporting in IFS is also easy to use."
"There are fewer fields on the user screen compared to other products. This makes the UI a little bit easier to understand."
"What I like about IFS Applications is that it's easier to use and implement than SAP. I also like that the IFS Applications team is more flexible than the SAP team."
"The platform is reliable and stable."
 

Cons

"It would be better if it also supports some styling. Currently, whenever we have to do design for a particular client according to their brand strategy, it takes a good amount of effort. Adobe never focuses on this area. They say that you design your pages, templates, etc. If they can define common components or a common section of the style sheet so that if you want to have a button by default, you can go and just mention the specifications, such as the color code, and those specifications are automatically followed across the whole site or multiple sites according to the brand strategy. Such functionality will be helpful because currently, it takes a lot of effort to manage them separately."
"Unable to handle very large video files."
"The solution's reporting tools still require improvement."
"Aspects of HR and payroll could be better."
"There should be some improvements in the predefined templates in IFS Applications."
"I'm a business analyst, so I do a lot of customer-facing work. I take calls from businesses I have to troubleshoot. One thing that bugs me is the error messages you get from IFS. If I get an error message, I have to dig to find the cause because, often, the error message doesn't precisely describe the problem. It'll hint about where the problem lies, but you have to work to find the root cause. It doesn't help in my situation. You expect an error message to point to the field or what is causing the issue."
"We would like to see AI-driven CSI functions built into the tool that would allow us to quickly tie our improvement goals to metrics and activities, so Assyst will suggest the next steps to help us get closer to our goals."
"The integration is a bit complex, and post-implementation support services need to be improved. They have a service center based out of Sri Lanka. The support aspect is good, but the response time is a little slower than we anticipated. In the next release, it would be better if Warehouse Management could be improvised. They have a product line that's a data warehouse management system, but it's still premature and requires a bit of enhancement."
"There are some stability issues."
"The CRM was shaky and although this improves in Apps 10, there is room for improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's definitely an expensive solution, but it comes with a lot of features and scalability. As compared to other content management systems that we have in the market, AEM is the costliest one. There is no hidden or additional fee."
"We pay for a license to use the solution, which is not very expensive."
"IFS Applications are competitive in terms of pricing compared to other vendors, such as SAP, Oracle, and Epicor. They are generally cheaper, especially for licensing costs."
"Pricing is an area that could be improved. They could be more competitive."
"IFS Applications is expensive software, but it's on par with SAP and Oracle. It's for large enterprises and government entities and not for small and medium-sized enterprises. They have one licensing model, but if you want to have a module-specific license, they provide component-based licenses. Unlike SAP and Oracle, it doesn't have different levels of licensing. It's one level of licensing."
"It is better to buy implementation services from IFS than from partners"
"Ask for all-inclusive pricing, as they are pretty flexible if you ask for custom models."
"Compared to SAP, the pricing for IFS Applications was very affordable. People using the solution would find that it's worth the money."
"The pricing of the solution may appear to be expensive for smaller companies with only tens of users; however, for larger and mid-size industrial companies, IFS is able to win deals and the pricing is competitive in the market."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Customer Experience Management solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about IFS Applications?
Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine or ten out of ten since it is an extremely scalable solution that can be used for various use cases with thousands of users.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IFS Applications?
The product is reasonably priced. The costs are justified by the value provided, considering the comprehensive features and minimal need for customization. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.
What needs improvement with IFS Applications?
I am not able to recall much about batch. Documentation-wise, they need more. There is not much available online, and the documentation availability is on the lower side compared to other products,...
 

Also Known As

No data available
IFS Applications, Assyst, IFS Cloud
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, University of Georgia, The University of Auckland, Dalhousie University, KfW Bankengruppe, IG Group, National Australia Bank, Investec, New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT), Swiss Federal Railways (SBB), Singapore Tourism Board, European Southern Observatory (ESO)
China Airlines, Electrolux Group, Babcock, Cimcorp, Sky, Multiplex, Veolia. 
Find out what your peers are saying about Adobe Web Experience Management vs. IFS Cloud Platform and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.