No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Digital Safe vs OpenText Content Manager comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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

Digital Safe
Ranking in File Archiving
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Content Manager
Ranking in File Archiving
2nd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Content Management (10th), Document Management Software (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the File Archiving category, the mindshare of Digital Safe is 5.4%, down from 5.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Content Manager is 6.8%, up from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
File Archiving Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Content Manager6.8%
Digital Safe5.4%
Other87.8%
File Archiving
 

Featured Reviews

it_user948 - PeerSpot reviewer
digital strategist at SMD Services
Solid product, functionally rich, but complex.
The message archiving tool is very powerful and can handle many search / flagging scenarios, as well as numerous message types (SMS, E-mail, bloomberg, etc). With flexibility comes complexity. The solution is very complex and requires significant configuration. If hosting…
AH
Enterprise Information Manager in Practice at Mannai
Improved content management with good reliability and an easy setup
We are a system integrator. We deal with client requirements to determine the best solutions that should be deployed. Our primary use case for OpenText Content Manager is managing enterprise content, such as documents and emails, as well as engineering document management OpenText Content Manager…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The message archiving tool is very powerful and can handle many search / flagging scenarios, as well as numerous message types (SMS, E-mail, Bloomberg, etc)."
"We are required to have a robust Records Management system, and it does this job."
"For a records management system, Content Manager is a really good system."
"HPE Content Manager provides organizations with a reliable system for managing massive amounts of information, in a structured, compliant and secure way, with a level of functionality and reliability that I have not seen matched by custom-built or other systems."
"Customer Service: We appreciate HPE's team of resources, who assist us as issues arise."
"We like how the solution allows us to have retention of records and workflows, as well as its fire plan."
"Eliminated the need for paper records."
"The most valuable features of OpenText Content Manager are its stability, reliability, security, and workflow engine."
"Go for it."
 

Cons

"With flexibility comes complexity. The solution is very complex and requires significant configuration."
"Microsoft Office disabling the HPE Records Manager integration is an issue."
"Technical support is very frustrating. It is difficult to get a good response from HPE and even more difficult to find anyone that can really help us with the product."
"It's not very good at providing stable and robust add-ins to Microsoft."
"This system eats up a lot of staff time for support, administration, and use."
"Due to very limited use in the industry, vendor and contract support are hard to find."
"The ease of use should be addressed."
"This web client requires more refinement to be viable as a desktop client replacement."
"It has extensive configuration restrictions for administrators and file extension limitations. Clunky in look and feel."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The fees incurred are for the licensing and maintenance."
"I rate the product price an eight or nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. The solution is expensive."
"I would suggest that you do a thorough evaluation of all competing products and look for support for these products in your local area."
"The solution's licensing cost depends on the customer domain. Though its costs are high, the product is worth the money. You have to pay a one-time cost and support costs."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File Archiving solutions are best for your needs.
914,394 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Government
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise8
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Content Manager?
Pricing is a disadvantage as it is very expensive, especially in this market.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Content Manager?
Pricing is an issue, as it is too expensive. Support and services need to be more user-friendly. The support has been slow, and there is room for improvement. Additionally, they could improve build...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Content Manager?
We are a system integrator. We deal with client requirements to determine the best solutions that should be deployed. Our primary use case for OpenText Content Manager is managing enterprise conten...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Digital Safe, Autonomy Zantaz, HPE Autonomy Zantaz, HPE Digital Safe
Micro Focus Content Manager, HPE Records Manager, HPE Content Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

EDF, Morgan Stanley, RateCity, Missouri State Courts
Missouri State Courts
Find out what your peers are saying about Veritas, OpenText, Quest Software and others in File Archiving. Updated: September 2026.
914,394 professionals have used our research since 2012.