We performed a comparison between IBM FileNet 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."The features that I have found most valuable include the Data Capture and Case Manager features."
"It is a user-friendly system and easy to manage for anyone with basic knowledge."
"I have found that it scales well."
"It is used by large enterprises. It has to be scalable and robust for them to use. We have seen that on multiple projects over the years."
"The important features to me are that it is stable, scalable, and the integration between this platform and the other platforms is very good."
"It is really usable. There is a lot of support for it. You have the online components to trawl through the storage. I have a lot of fun with it."
"I like the security and also the configuration. It is easy to configure and most of our business use cases have everything just with the configuration itself."
"The product is robust and can process a lot of documents for enterprise content management."
"We could see whether the customer with whom we shared a file had downloaded it, which was not available with GitHub."
"The solution can be used remotely; it's easy to upload and share files."
"The benefits that Kiteworks has provided to its customers in terms of data sovereignty."
"The best part of this solution is that we can generate multiple reports about how the data is transferred and about user information or IP."
"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 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."
"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."
"I like Kiteworks or Accellion because it's continuously upgraded. I also know that it probably works with a lot of clients."
"I would like to see the dashboard be a little bit more robust and a little more user-friendly"
"We'd like to use the docker, to have it containerized."
"I would love it if single sign-on was a lot easier to set up. That's the most difficult part of it."
"We would like to see, in FileNet, the ability to manage video and audio."
"The product is expensive."
"It is ability to display legacy content needs improvement."
"The new software and trends with the cloud solution is a little slow. I would like them to move toward more cloud-based and microservices rather than a SaaS model. This is where the industry is going and what customers are asking for."
"I would like to have an offline DR deployment. If that is doable, then it would be a big win."
"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."
"It could be more stable. In the next release, it would be better if it was more stable with improved performance."
"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."
"We have experienced a few hiccups and bugs when using the admin console and from a user perspective."
"In my experience, their technical support can be a little slow."
"File location could be improved."
"It would be nice if Kiteworks could provide a free version of the platform so that it could be used for a certain number of file transfers. We could be charged a fee if we exceeded the number of allotted file transfers."
IBM FileNet is ranked 6th in Enterprise Content Management with 94 reviews while Kiteworks is ranked 5th in Enterprise Content Management with 12 reviews. IBM FileNet is rated 8.2, while Kiteworks is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of IBM FileNet writes "A document management system that helps in document digitalization and workflow management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiteworks writes "A unified, secure way to share sensitive content, with no file size limitations". IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM, IBM ECM and Alfresco, whereas Kiteworks is most compared with Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct, MOVEit, Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, SharePoint and Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense. See our IBM FileNet vs. Kiteworks 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.
