We performed a comparison between Box and Kiteworks 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."Box is extremely stable, they have not been hacked or lost any data in the past seventeen years. I am very impressed with it."
"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."
"The solution is scalable."
"The system's performance is impressive, and file sharing is notably straightforward."
"Simple file sharing and sync for internal and external customers."
"It is a very user-friendly product."
"I like that Box makes it easy to deploy virtual machines."
"I like the ease of use."
"We could see whether the customer with whom we shared a file had downloaded it, which was not available with GitHub."
"I like Kiteworks or Accellion because it's continuously upgraded. I also know that it probably works with a lot of clients."
"The most valuable aspect of Kiteworks is undoubtedly the private content network. This feature is particularly beneficial for us. Furthermore, it serves as a centralized platform that enables us to track and manage our information exchange."
"We can see when people are sending things. We can definitely see who is sending to whom. From the administrative logs, we can see who is sending to an outside entity, and those logs are retained for quite a while."
"The solution removes the limitations with file attachment size that is found with regular email."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to send a large file of 30 GB in size and more. In Outlook and other email applications, you cannot send files that are larger than 20 MB. But with Kiteworks, 30 GB is transferable by default and, with the proper approval, a file of up to 100 GB can be sent. It makes file transfer very easy and smooth."
"The top two features are the two-factor authentication, which is pretty good. It's easily understood by the users. And their API is rather robust. We have numerous integrations that work off the API."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to allow end-users to manage their own information and data with minimal administration. That's the best feature from my perspective."
"The upload speed needs improvement."
"The room for improvement is in the area of integrations. They need to establish more integrations, especially with Office 365 and Outlook."
"One thing that Box would benefit from is a records management component."
"The solution's data security should be improved."
"I would love to see the ability to invite collaborators extended to a file level, not just the folder level."
"Better integration with other solutions is needed."
"I recommend doing the trial first, because it's not cheap ware. It's not overly expensive, but it's not cheap ware, and enterprise has a minimum number of users."
"Working on documents in real-time is sometimes faulty and could be improved."
"We have experienced a few hiccups and bugs when using the admin console and from a user perspective."
"Kiteworks could benefit from enhancing the proposal knowledge base section, specifically regarding the type of work involved. Currently, the knowledge base seems insufficiently dedicated to this topic, making it challenging for new users to access the relevant administrative law. Improving the visual aids and providing clearer explanations could alleviate this issue."
"There is no offboarding process for end-users in Kiteworks. It's a manual process. There is no automated syncing with LDAP and checking to see if the account is still active. It's a manual process to get people out of here, which isn't the best way."
"The one feature, which I have also requested directly to Kiteworks, is to have a scheduled upgrade function. Currently, one of my engineers logs in after hours for the upgrade. We're a hospital, and we're 24/7, but the primary users are seven to five. So, we log in the early evening just to push a button to tell it to do the update. It would be nice if that could be very easily scheduled."
"There are always issues when there are bugs or upgrades. The challenge with upgrading is getting more storage from the customer. Every time we have a new version, it requires additional storage. This means that the customer would need to procure more storage for their server, which they don't like because it means additional cost to them. So, I think my request would be that the version upgrades don't require any significant storage requirement."
"It could be more stable. In the next release, it would be better if it was more stable with improved performance."
"File location could be improved."
"I would like to see immediate releases of fixes because now it takes at least a week. If that time span can be reduced to one day or two days, that would be very helpful for users so that things are sorted and transactions work smoothly."
Box is ranked 4th in Enterprise Content Management with 37 reviews while Kiteworks is ranked 6th in Enterprise Content Management with 12 reviews. Box is rated 8.4, while Kiteworks is rated 8.8. 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 Kiteworks writes "A unified, secure way to share sensitive content, with no file size limitations". Box is most compared with SharePoint, Microsoft OneDrive, Citrix ShareFile, Office 365 and Backblaze B2, whereas Kiteworks is most compared with Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct, MOVEit, Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, SharePoint and Microsoft Office SharePoint Server. See our Box vs. Kiteworks report.
See our list of best Enterprise Content Management vendors and best Content Collaboration Platforms 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.
