We performed a comparison between Box and IBM ECM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, OpenText, Box and others in Enterprise Content Management."You can upload your bin, upload your files quickly, and download your files quickly. It provides a lot of other alternatives."
"I like that Box makes it easy to deploy virtual machines."
"I like the ease of use."
"The most valuable feature of Box is security."
"File sharing with collaborators not on the same domain with offline access from multiple devices: I work on many projects that are multi-organizational, such as with customers, suppliers, or acquisitions."
"The solution is scalable."
"The ability to collaborate around data anywhere, anytime is the most powerful features of Box."
"The interface is very good."
"The content management is all about you as you can make the same content for minimal purpose solutions applications."
"The scalability is a valuable feature, that we're able to display our documents to so many people."
"The tool is a very stable solution with high availability and no information leakage. It has built-in API integration on-site. You can integrate with other components and applications like SAP, Microsoft, Oracle, etc."
"The vertical scalability, as we can use it across some of our applications."
"They could integrate better with other platforms."
"Data privacy, regarding where to store your data: Offering several transparent(!) options (where to store my data and whether to sync back or not and where to sync) regarding the local law situations (USA, EU, Switzerland!) would increase the credibility of a US based company (after NSA ‘snooping’)."
"The upload speed needs improvement."
"The solution's data security should be improved."
"The search features and role permissions are not very user friendly. It only searches the first few pages of a document, which is quite a problem."
"I would love to see the ability to invite collaborators extended to a file level, not just the folder level."
"I don't like the low level of role-based security it provides – it's very cumbersome, and the support is ordinary at times."
"Like all cloud platforms, there are always areas of improvement around sync to local devices."
"I would recommend not going with ECM 8 and going with FileNet instead. It seems like that is the future of the lower-volume repository. It seems like they are moving away from ECM 8.5 so I think we're going to have some challenges coming up, getting off of that technology."
"I would like to see seamless application integration."
"I think it's already getting away from Java applets. A lot of our users struggle with keeping up to date with Java versioning, so a lot of the functions they're doing, like printing, emailing, and even some of the viewing, they're struggling with."
"The development platform is not local. For example, you need 100 days in IBM, whereas other platforms, like ServiceNow, need only 20 days."
Box is ranked 4th in Enterprise Content Management with 37 reviews while IBM ECM is ranked 13th in Enterprise Content Management with 16 reviews. Box is rated 8.4, while IBM ECM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Box writes "Used for data storage and data collaboration, but its data security could be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM ECM writes "Datacap provides granularity and any level of customization. Solution development and delivery time needs to be improved". Box is most compared with SharePoint, Microsoft OneDrive, Citrix ShareFile, Office 365 and Egnyte, whereas IBM ECM is most compared with IBM FileNet, Mobius Content Services Platform, OpenText Documentum, SAP Extended Enterprise Content Management and Alfresco.
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.
