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

Adobe Web Experience Management vs OpenText Content Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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...
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Customer Experience Management (15th)
OpenText Content Management
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Content Management (3rd), Content Collaboration Platforms (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Adobe Web Experience Management and OpenText Content Management aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Adobe Web Experience Management is designed for Customer Experience Management and holds a mindshare of 1.8%, down 4.0% compared to last year.
OpenText Content Management, on the other hand, focuses on Enterprise Content Management, holds 10.8% mindshare, up 10.5% since last year.
Customer Experience Management
Enterprise Content 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.
Jaideep MS - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables effective document control yet requires better affordability and clarity
I use extended ECM for procurement, sales, engineering documents, and sometimes invoices and accounts payable or receivable The version controls and the business workspace part integrate well with SAP and OpenText, providing granular level control over who accesses the workspace. The seamless…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Good content and digital management capabilities."
"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."
"Being able to search is valuable. Its search is pretty powerful. We are able to search for specific text, and it points us to the document that has that text. That is pretty powerful."
"The version controls and the business workspace part integrate well with SAP and OpenText, providing granular level control over who accesses the workspace."
"We also have a module on top of the Content Server called WebReports that has been one of the things that helped us facilitate the workflow and give managers good reporting and visibility into where everything is. Being able to use that on top of the Content Server was a big help."
"We use Core Share to share documents with external auditors or with vendors, and that prevents them from being able to get into the whole system. It is useful."
"The integration of a document management platform with many other applications, e.g. SAP, SuccessFactors, Salesforce, SharePoint, etc."
"We can configure the solution with any industry's products per customer requirements."
"The solution's automatic document numbering, state management, and process flow are very useful features to go through the full cycle of the document."
"Being able to tag metadata on documents and being able to have different workspaces in there for our documents is valuable. We do loan documents, and different types of documents have different types of retentions. We are able to categorize based on that, and we are able to do tag searching to find what we are looking for."
 

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."
"A dashboard with information would be nice to see."
"The cost of the product could be improved."
"The solution needs to improve the user interface."
"The tool's documentation is not proper and has missing information like steps."
"OpenText Extended ECM's user interface could be improved."
"More out-of-the-box automation features should be added to OpenText Extended ECM."
"User interface needs improvement (at least in the version we are using, desktop client)."
"The response time is not effective, and the staff lacks adequate knowledge."
 

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."
"OpenText Extended ECM's pricing and licensing are aggressive and confusing for the end customer."
"The licensing is not that complex for the core products, but it becomes more complicated for some additional modules."
"Both Open Text ECM and IBM File share are expensive."
"The solution is expensive."
"The tool's pricing is confusing to the end customer."
"It is a little more expensive than our previous solution, but because of the fact that it has become a rallying point for different groups to come under, it might end up paying off better in the long run by not having seven siloed solutions. Even though this one solution is a little pricey, it might eliminate other ones."
"The pricing is costly. It's costly to integrate with Office 365 and to go back and forth with the sales team."
"The product is pricey."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Customer Experience Management solutions are best for your needs.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Government
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

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 OpenText Content Suite Platform?
We also have a module on top of the Content Server called WebReports that has been one of the things that helped us facilitate the workflow and give managers good reporting and visibility into wher...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OpenText Content Suite Platform?
The cost is a significant factor that may deter medium-sized businesses from using OpenText extended ECM.
What needs improvement with OpenText Content Suite Platform?
The cost of the product could be improved. Currently, there are certain snags in document viewing, and communication from the pre-sales team is not clear. The expectation from the customer versus t...
 

Also Known As

No data available
OpenText Content Suite Platform, OpenText Core Share
 

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)
ATCO Australia, MSIG Asia, Orica, Salt River Project
Find out what your peers are saying about Salesforce, Qualtrics, ServiceNow and others in Customer Experience Management. Updated: July 2025.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.