We performed a comparison between IBM FileNet and M-Files based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, OpenText, Box and others in Enterprise Content Management."Gves us the ability to create an end-to-end [document] transaction."
"The product has helped with compliance and governance issues. There are some archiving policies which a financial organization has to keep. Our organization can keep up with them because of the IBM product."
"The product is robust and can process a lot of documents for enterprise content management."
"The most valuable feature is the way in which it enables clients and customers to quickly access the content and information that they use for everyday functions."
"The most valuable features of FileNet are its comprehensive ability to store content, to get insights from the content, and to use that content for making decisions routed through workflow."
"We have made our service routes more efficient, as far as moving work through the system and being able to react to customer situations and needs better by improving things, such as, address and beneficiary changes. I know that we have definitely made improvements in the process."
"The most valuable features for us are Wex (Watson) for search, Datacap for OCR/ICR, and Automation Anywhere for RPA."
"We use IBM Datacap's capabilities to capture data and then we use FileNet's capabilities for filing, to create an archive of documents... We [also] use FileNet's ability to expose information via APIs and interoperate with other systems."
"Using M-Files means anybody on the executive team to go in and immediately look at a dashboard and know the status of a contract."
"Programmers have to translate user needs into IBM FileNet, which causes misinterpretations."
"The product is expensive."
"The new user interface is not easy to set up, so some improvements along these lines would be good."
"The analytics in FileNet are too complicated and they consume too much infrastructure, memory, and CPU. They're too expensive to work with."
"We brought DocuSign into our company's solution three years before. At that time there was no direct integration. We would like to pull documents out from FileNet, push them to DocuSign and, when done, retrieve them and store them back in FileNet. We wrote our own custom solution for that. It would be nice if there was some tool we could have used to do that."
"Needs a better administration tool."
"We would like to see, in FileNet, the ability to manage video and audio."
"It is ability to display legacy content needs improvement."
"The integration with other products needs to be improved."
Earn 20 points
IBM FileNet is ranked 5th in Enterprise Content Management with 94 reviews while M-Files is ranked 8th in Document Management Software. IBM FileNet is rated 8.2, while M-Files is rated 9.0. 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 M-Files writes "Good workflows, and it is easy to use with a dashboard that improves contract visibility". IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM, IBM ECM and Systemware ECM, whereas M-Files is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Extended ECM, OpenText Documentum, Microsoft Purview Records Management and Alfresco.
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.
