DocuShare vs OpenText Content Manager comparison

Xerox and OpenText are both solutions in the Enterprise Content Management category. Xerox is ranked #17 with an average rating of 7.0, while OpenText is ranked #7 with an average rating of 8.3. Xerox holds a 0.5% mindshare in ECM, compared to OpenText’s 4.4% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Xerox users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 86% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

DocuShare

Read 4 DocuShare reviews

229 Views
154 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Content Manager

Read 23 OpenText Content Manager reviews

1,430 Views
824 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

DocuShare

OpenText Content Manager

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

OpenText Content Manager and DocuShare are both leading enterprise content management solutions competing for prominence in the ECM category. DocuShare has an upper hand with its user-friendly interface and ease of access, while OpenText Content Manager is favored for its robust integration capabilities suitable for larger organizations.

Features: OpenText Content Manager provides advanced records management, versatile metadata handling, and expansive integration options with enterprise systems. DocuShare offers intuitive document collaboration tools, easy document capture processes, and a straightforward user interface. OpenText stands out in scalability and compliance management, whereas DocuShare is preferred for its ease of use.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Content Manager could improve in simplifying its user interface, enhancing customer support, and reducing deployment complexity. DocuShare might benefit from expanding its integration capabilities, offering more advanced compliance features, and providing enhanced metadata handling options.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Content Manager involves a more intricate deployment process, requiring significant IT involvement, correlating with its detailed features catering to larger enterprises. DocuShare facilitates a simpler deployment process with flexible cloud solutions and is known for its responsive customer service, making it suitable for businesses seeking quick implementations.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Content Manager's higher initial costs reflect its comprehensive features and capabilities, which may deliver higher ROI for large-scale operations over time. DocuShare presents a cost-effective initial investment, appealing to budget-conscious businesses while still providing effective content management solutions, making it ideal for smaller organizations or those with limited budgets.

To learn more, read our detailed DocuShare vs. OpenText Content Manager Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

DocuShare vs. OpenText Content Manager

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 peers since 2012

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

DocuShare

Ranking in Enterprise Content Management

17th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Content Manager

Ranking in Enterprise Content Management

7th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

File Archiving (4th), Document Management Software (2nd)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Enterprise Content Management category, the mindshare of DocuShare is 0.5%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Content Manager is 4.4%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Enterprise Content Management

Featured Reviews

R Williams

Software Analyst at Altron

The new releases incorporate significant advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and language processing capabilities

Version control interface is very good. The new releases of DocuShare incorporate significant advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and language processing capabilities. For instance, when you upload a document into DocuShare, you no longer need to set up templates to identify and extract important fields. The system automatically reads the document and identifies key information. For example, in a contract document between two entities, it can recognize the contract start date, end date, reference number, and other relevant details without manual intervention. This automated process streamlines document management. You should know your requirements and understand your environment, as well as the goals you want to achieve. Try out the demo first to see if it fits your needs and objectives before making a decision. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Read full review

Maurice Riverso

Records Management Officer at ANZPAA

Our our official repository and it has disposal management and retention management

The security architecture is the only problem as it's a little bit complex and too torturous at times. So it could be improved a little bit, but it is regarded as a very good system in Australia. It's probably overly subscribed. Also, what's missing is what people would like, which is basically online collaboration. That's a problem. But it has so many other things to offer that SharePoint, I'm sure, will not have. So, that will be an interesting issue to come up. It's not very good at providing stable and robust add-ins to Microsoft. That's a bit of a problem with Content Manager. They're kind of very volatile. So, that's been definitely something that could be improved.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The software development kit can be customized."

"The tool's implementation has made life easier for customers. It is sold by SAP. The integration between SAP and the solution is good, making it easy to access the documents. It is widely recognized as a market leader in enterprise document management."

"It has a robust search but has often been difficult for people to learn."

"The product can be integrated with different solutions."

"For a records management system, Content Manager is a really good system."

"An advantage is integration with your IP directory."

"The most valuable features of OpenText Content Manager are its stability, reliability, security, and workflow engine."

"We like how the solution allows us to have retention of records and workflows, as well as its fire plan."

"I did not face issues with the product's scalability...The solution's technical support is good."

Cons

"The user interface could be improved."

"Pricing is an issue, as it is too expensive."

"Due to very limited use in the industry, vendor and contract support are hard to find."

"OpenText Content Manager needs to improve its user interface. Its installation process is difficult and can be made easier."

"It's not very good at providing stable and robust add-ins to Microsoft."

"The ease of use should be addressed."

"The stability of the solution is an area of concern where improvements can be made."

"The product could improve its scalability."

"Support could be enhanced. The first line of support consists of individuals who lack experience with some key aspects. When you create a support ticket, the time to resolve the issue may be prolonged because the first person may not understand the system or the solution."

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"The fees incurred are for the licensing and maintenance."

"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."

"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."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Content Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Government

19%

Computer Software Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with DocuShare?

The user interface could be improved.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for DocuShare?

We use the solution for electronic document filing.

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering DocuShare?

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus Content Manager?

An advantage is integration with your IP directory.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

SharePoint vs DocuShare

Compared 100% of the time

More DocuShare Competitors

SharePoint vs OpenText Content Manager

Compared 26% of the time

OpenText Extended ECM vs OpenText Content Manager

Compared 17% of the time

OpenText Documentum vs OpenText Content Manager

Compared 13% of the time

IBM FileNet vs OpenText Content Manager

Compared 11% of the time

Microsoft Purview Records Management vs OpenText Content Manager

Compared 11% of the time

More OpenText Content Manager Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Enterprise Content Management

March 2025

Download DocuShare product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Content Manager

April 2025

Download OpenText Content Manager product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus Content Manager, HPE Records Manager, HPE Content Manager

Overview

Xerox DocuShare's Content Management System gives you the easiest method to manage all of your paper and digital documents

Xerox

OpenText Content Manager, formerly Records Manager, is a governance-based enterprise content management system designed to help government agencies, regulated industries and global organizations manage their business content from creation to disposal. Regardless of how you create and collaborate on your content, Content Manager gives you the ability to leverage accurate, contextual, and complete information throughout its lifecycle. Managing your content in this way helps you significantly improve services to your customers, business decisions and insight for future strategy.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Lincoln Public Schools, West Orange School District, Tulane University, Niagara Catholic School District, Arig, Co-operative Financial Services, Mizuho Capital Markets Corporation, Volksbank Romania and Iron Mountain, Hammersmith Hospital, Holman Insurance Brokers Ltd., Kaiser Permanente, Convergys Inc., Honeywell, Universal Pictures, McGraw Hill Construction Information Group

Missouri State Courts

Buyer's Guide

DocuShare vs. OpenText Content Manager

April 2025

Free Report: DocuShare vs. OpenText Content Manager

Find out what your peers are saying about DocuShare vs. OpenText Content Manager and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our DocuShare vs. OpenText Content Manager 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.