Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

GeneXus vs Hyland OnBase comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 2024

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

GeneXus
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
16th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
Mobile Development Platforms (10th)
Hyland OnBase
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
12th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (16th), Enterprise Content Management (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Low-Code Development Platforms category, the mindshare of GeneXus is 0.9%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Hyland OnBase is 2.0%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Low-Code Development Platforms Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Hyland OnBase2.0%
GeneXus0.9%
Other97.1%
Low-Code Development Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

XavierEspinoza - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers a simplified architecture with outstanding integration capabilities
The integration capabilities of GeneXus are highly valuable for our organization. The metadata obtained within the logic of different systems is also vital. Due to the solution, our company team doesn't have to work with multiple languages and integrations can be made with C Sharp. JavaScript can also be used with GeneXus, the tool takes charge of all the rest and has a simple architecture. The solution can be used out of the box without facing any issues and nothing much needs to be done with frameworks. In our case we need to use Python with GeneXus, we use Ironpython to embed python code in C# .
Srinivas Rao Kagitha - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers good dashboards and reports but fails to offer better migration features
The migration is a bit difficult in the tool. Whenever we make certain changes to workflow or other stuff, migrating the code from one environment to another is a bit tedious. The tool has an option for export and import, which is not robust. Most of the time, we need to do things stuff manually. For example, if we make any changes in the existing life cycle or any queues, we have to move those changes manually. There is no robust way to migrate code from one environment to a lower environment, like prod. When it comes to the product's technical support, the turnaround time is a bit longer than expected. The issue may be because there are a number of issues or a large number of customers who are reaching out to the support team for help. I believe that the solution's technical team can provide a solution more quickly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"In Knowledge Base, being able to model the workflow before developing the screens is great. We first work with the tables or the transactions using GeneXus and then we work on the screens."
"With GeneXus, we can create logical representations of transactions in the form of objects."
"The most valuable feature is that GeneXus works with several languages. It's possible to develop chatbots and other functionalities."
"The solution provides ease of programming and the speed of delivery of demands."
"I like the testing models, which allow me to create unit or interface tests of my programs. It helps us avoid missed deadlines because we can detect all the errors before deploying the new versions of the solution. And I also like the integration with coding managers like DevOps or Jenkins. It enables us to do versioning."
"The integration capabilities of GeneXus are highly valuable for our organization"
"This solution works extremely quickly in terms of enabling an application in a production environment."
"I find the implementation process of GeneXus to be easy."
"The product's initial setup phase is not difficult."
"We found the setup process to be okay since they do offer a troubleshooting guide."
"I like the cloud and its integrability."
"Integrating Hyland OnBase with our systems enabled us to automate document designs and templates, which was extremely helpful in the finance and banking industry."
"It provided data security features, allowing restrictions on sensitive documents, such as who could view or modify them."
"Its most valuable aspect is its flexibility"
"The most valuable features are that it's very secure and provides audit trails for our documents."
"The solution's most valuable features are integration and flexibility."
 

Cons

"The graphical interface could be improved. I also notice some performance problems on hardware that should be more than adequate. GeneXus uses a lot of RAM and other computer resources."
"It would be helpful to have additional assisted processing with training."
"Code generation is highly time-consuming for GeneXus"
"Documentation is always an issue. In order to develop with GeneXus, there is very little documentation. The documentation is not clear enough in order to develop a great tool."
"GeneXus's user interface has room for improvement."
"I told them to add something about Angular. They're already working on adding it."
"The front-end with GeneXus is not as good as the back-end."
"It's expensive for a company."
"The look and feel could be better. The integration with the user could be better. It could also be more user-friendly."
"We are struggling with duplicates and would like to have OCR functionality when using this solution."
"For user experience, they would have to do more with the interface. It is not easy to work with and is a little messy. It is getting better, but it is not yet good enough. Other products are comparatively doing better in terms of the user interface. I have been hearing about Box, which is very easy to use and learn for the users. OnBase has to work on this aspect. It should have BPM capabilities. We compete with tools that provide the BPM feature and support those standards. They can do better in terms of the pricing model. It is a really expensive tool in Latin America. They should have different prices for different regions."
"The dashboards do have some room for improvement as compared to the other vendors which are there in the market."
"The application could potentially be more open-source, allowing integration with more solutions."
"An area for improvement would be the training - getting our people up to speed on how to use it required more training than we expected due to the complexity of the solution."
"I find OnBase's monolithic architecture to be expensive, and adopting microservices could be beneficial."
"The migration is a bit difficult in the tool."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost of a GeneXus license is extremely high. At the same time, one person using the solution can do the work of three Java or data developers. I think that's why they charge so much. It's too expensive, which is one reason it isn't widely used."
"The solution is very expensive."
"I give the cost of the solution a four out of ten."
"This solution offers multi-plan licenses, depending on the size of the company and the features required, as opposed to being priced per user/device."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten"
"People tend to work with GeneXus if it's cheap, but GeneXus does have licensing policies...Moreover, the cost of resourcing work in GeneXus may make it more expensive than other programming languages."
"It's expensive. I'd rate it a four out of ten in terms of pricing."
"The price is good."
"The solution costs around $6,000 per month."
"OnBase is reasonably priced."
"The tool's price is high."
"They can do better in terms of the pricing model. It is a really expensive tool in Latin America. They should have different prices for different regions."
"There are a number of different types of licenses. There are concurrent licenses, individual licenses and imaging licenses."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Low-Code Development Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
14%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Performing Arts
6%
Government
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise8
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with GeneXus?
GeneXus needs to be more consistent in functionality without any errors. Code generation is highly time-consuming for GeneXus, but in some cases, it saves time as well. Some errors will take too lo...
What is your primary use case for GeneXus?
Our company uses the latest version of GeneXus. The solution is used in our company to develop various enterprise systems, and GeneXus is used as an integrator, which further facilitates low-cost d...
What advice do you have for others considering GeneXus?
The tool's use case depends upon the requirements. The solution is ideal for integrations to modernize systems. GeneXus is also used in a site to develop systems with functional programming for big...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Hyland OnBase?
I find pricing to be on the higher side due to its monolithic architecture. I would rate it six out of ten. Transitioning to microservices, allowing users to pay for only what they use, could reduc...
What needs improvement with Hyland OnBase?
I believe the reporting features need improvement, as other competitors in the market provide better analytics. Hyland is working on a new platform (HXP) to integrate features from all products, ad...
What is your primary use case for Hyland OnBase?
I was a vendor managing Hyland OnBase ( /products/hyland-onbase-reviews ) for Hyland, not as a direct user but as a business partner. We managed the solution and were a partner with Hyland.
 

Also Known As

No data available
OnBase
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Canal de Panamá, Gerdau, Coca-Cola, Mercado Libre, DHL, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, TECNISA, Mexican Polak Group, Ferrovalle, Canon, Azteca, KPMG, TURBUS, Santander, BBVA
Honda France Industries, Hill County Texas, Hylant Group, ING Lease France, State of South Carolina, Syracuse University, Swindon College, Rhode Island Department of Human Services, Rochester Institute of Technology, Moen, Odense University Hospital
Find out what your peers are saying about GeneXus vs. Hyland OnBase and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.