We performed a comparison between Box and IBM FileNet 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."File sharing, authorization on the back, its ease of use and reliable uptime performance are valuable features of this solution."
"Simple file sharing and sync for internal and external customers."
"The solution is scalable."
"I like the ease of use."
"Box is very user-friendly; more so than SharePoint."
"It is a very user-friendly product."
"Governance and ease of use are why I think a lot of people like Box, including ourselves. Basically, we're concerned about what information is being sent to Box, so we use a lot of the Box governance features to make sure that what is being sent to Box is appropriate. If it is not appropriate, it is not allowed to be sent. It is also pretty easy to use. It is the easiest to use for customers and for technologists."
"Office Integration. The full integration into the Microsoft Office products is just perfect."
"It is very user-friendly for business users. They can create their own searches. They are not dependent on administrators to create searches for them. It is self-service for them."
"It is very stable and reliable."
"It has improved my organization by how we release documents, claims, and policies."
"The important features to me are that it is stable, scalable, and the integration between this platform and the other platforms is very good."
"IBM FileNet has improved our organization with its single collaboration space."
"The natural interpolatability with IBM Datacap, that is a key component of our solution, as well as with BPM, and WebSphere Portal. That's why we prefer FileNet instead of some other, less world-class solution."
"Streamlined our business processes."
"The ability to manage the content well."
"Improvements in speed - Box's high level of security impacts performance, especially when compared with other similar services."
"It could be cheaper."
"I find their API to be quite complex and it could be more straightforward."
"The integration with other products 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 haven't really come across a case where we're not able to use it for what it is, so I don't really have anything holding us up or any customers holding us up at this point that I know of. There are always some limitations, but as a technologist, I just live with them, and there is always room for improvement, but I don't have anything quantifiable."
"If you want to delete something in Box, you have to do it manually, one by one. That was my recent experience. They might have a bulk delete, but I could not find that option. If you want to delete something, you have to go to each and every file and delete it."
"Maturity of the enterprise security around user management."
"We know that they're looking at documents, but we don't know what documents they're actually going and finding the most, or where the bottlenecks might be. It would be nice if there was some interconnectivity back into Bluemix to say, "Ok, you've got a workflow problem here." That would be a neat feature moving forward because we've got a lot of users that would just say, "The system is not working." We had a few threads would get hung up because they were just constantly banging on these few documents. If that were the case, if we knew that ahead of time, then we could fix that, change the search sequences to make it more efficient. But we were blind to that until the users said it's not working."
"The installation and configuration to start up needs expert level knowledge."
"The FileNet API seems like it is very difficult and not transparent."
"There is room for improvement in the file management. It's very complex."
"The basic and fundamental point about FileNet is that the interface is very bad. It's just not appealing so people are reluctant to use it."
"To start with there are too many add-ons, which makes it hard for us. If they simplified the add-ons and plugins to be added to our existing systems, it would definitely help us in the future."
"I think the support could be better, and it could improve."
"It would be nice to have additional integration features, which could be integration with IoOT-based products and solutions that also have automation requirements on the IOT side. Anything can be integrated from a Gateway or API perspective would be a plus."
Box is ranked 4th in Enterprise Content Management with 37 reviews while IBM FileNet is ranked 5th in Enterprise Content Management with 94 reviews. Box is rated 8.4, while IBM FileNet is rated 8.2. 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 FileNet writes "A document management system that helps in document digitalization and workflow management". Box is most compared with SharePoint, Microsoft OneDrive, Citrix ShareFile, Office 365 and Google Workspace, whereas IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM, IBM ECM and OpenText Content Manager. See our Box vs. IBM FileNet 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.
