We performed a comparison between Alfresco and OpenText Extended ECM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Content Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like the ease of use, sections, and calendar."
"The product allows engineering teams and developers to introduce new things in a seamless and easy way."
"Document repository."
"The most valuable feature is the flexibility of the searching elements of the metadata."
"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."
"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."
"An SAP user can store documents directly into OpenText without a connector."
"Scalability is great. We can extend areas horizontally and vertically."
"Simplicity to roll out, features available, customization options."
"We can configure the solution with any industry's products per customer requirements."
"WebReports has a lot of capabilities that offer good opportunities to customize the applications the way we want to."
"Metadata, auto class, disposition log, and legal hold."
"I would like them to consider document capture functionality."
"I think the presentation layer could be improved - currently, it's too complex, and there are too many features cluttered all over the screen."
"Alfresco has a very steep learning curve, and unfortunately, during the learning process, it's very easy to make errors, which often are unforgiving."
"When it comes to addressing complex use cases, three or four years ago, we ended up purchasing an additional OpenText product called AppWorks because we started to run into some limitations with the workflow that can be done in Extended ECM. It was a little limiting, so we ended up getting another product."
"I have not used it enough to start running into issues. Some of my technical guys could name a couple of things, but in terms of support, we did have challenges getting good responses from them."
"The solution needs to improve the user interface."
"We are looking for new, advanced UI features. Currently, the UI does not look great."
"We had some issues with scalability in the production. So, I would rate it a five out of ten."
"A dashboard with information would be nice to see."
"The solution's performance, stability, and consistency could be improved."
"There are no additional features that I would like to see. I am pretty happy with it, but their support could be a bit better."
Alfresco is ranked 9th in Enterprise Content Management while OpenText Extended ECM is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Content Management with 18 reviews. Alfresco is rated 8.0, while OpenText Extended ECM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Alfresco writes "Flexible and customizable but lacking integration with Microsoft". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Extended ECM writes "Serves as a single source of support for the company but has scalability issues". Alfresco is most compared with SharePoint, Hyland OnBase, IBM FileNet, OpenText Documentum and Nuxeo, whereas OpenText Extended ECM is most compared with OpenText Documentum, SharePoint, IBM FileNet, Hyland OnBase and OpenText Content Manager. See our Alfresco vs. OpenText Extended ECM report.
See our list of best Enterprise Content Management vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Content Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.