FileCloud vs Microsoft Office SharePoint Server comparison

"The granularity for the audit log in FileCloud is extremely valuable."

"It's a very robust product."

"The support from Microsoft is very quick and they are very proactive."

"The most valuable feature is the "Alert Me", which provides the ability to set an alert when content is either added or changed and that the alerts can be either real-time or aggregated for the day or the week."

"The forms aspect of the solution, for example, the creation of surveys, is its most valuable aspect."

"Document management and records management features are the most valuable."

"Ability to collaborate with others in one location."

"It is a decent tool for collaboration, especially if you are already using other Office products."

"The solution's most valuable features is its document management. It allows sharing with external users and integrates well with Office apps and Microsoft Flow."

"Currently, FileCloud's compatibility for Linux implementation is limited to only Ubuntu or Red Hat Enterprise Server."

"The product is behind in development and lacks some features."

"The solution needs to enable better sharing capabilities between users and external users. Several users also have problems with linking their emails to their Microsoft account."

"I would like to see the integration with Teams reinforced."

"Many of our customers would like to see an OCR feature, so it would be very good to have this in a future release."

"The product could be improved by accommodating different technologies, particularly integration."

"This solution is not very stable. It is useful to arrange data but it's not the best for big data. Sometimes we have issues with our reports as a result."

"I think these tools do a pretty good job. There is only one area of improvement. Maybe Microsoft can invest a little bit more into the ease at which integration can be done with other third party applications."

"The solution needs to have more flexibility. The classic version had more flexibility, however, the modern version has many more limitations."

"There are some aggressive discounts offered by Microsoft for organizations that are not for profit, which we are, and it makes it quite attractive to consider."

"Pricing plans may be flexible depending on volume usage and your corporate relationship with Microsoft."

"It can be expensive for on-premises deployments, especially when you have to support SQL Server as your backend database. That's where the cost comes into play. SQL Server has its own licensing, which Microsoft keeps on changing. Therefore, it can become costly. In the earlier versions of SharePoint, version 2007 or 2010, they had an express version where the SQL Server licensing was free. It wasn't like a full-blown SharePoint. It was only a slimmed-down version. It used to be whatever your hardware costs. You would install the free software and work with it, but you were very limited in what you could do in SharePoint. If you wanted the SharePoint Enterprise Server with all the bells and whistles, then you had to pay more to get the SQL Server license based on the number of users or servers. The subscription model is different for cloud deployments. Licensing is per user and per month. The cost also depends on the storage required. If you have a lot of sites or documents, then you need to expand it based on your needs."

"One of the reasons why we don't recommend the cloud version of SharePoint is the cost. With the on premise version, you pay for the license once. For the cloud version, there is a recurring fee. It is very expensive. They expect everyone to pay $20 or $30 per user per month."