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

IBM FileNet vs OpenText Content Manager comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
4.3
IBM FileNet improved efficiency, reduced errors and costs, saving clients up to $30,000 annually with enhanced automation and accuracy.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText Content Manager improves efficiency and security, though requires more support and integration compared to modern solutions.
Cost savings come from re-engineering the business processes using IBM FileNet and related strategies.
Consulting CTO at a tech consulting company with 1-10 employees
There is a significant ROI from IBM FileNet because before its introduction, the company needed to do all the work manually.
Chief Architect at NEUSOFT JAPAN
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.0
IBM FileNet customer service is praised for responsiveness but faces challenges with time zones and specific expertise issues.
Sentiment score
5.6
OpenText Content Manager support varies; users praise premium help but note deficiencies and complexity, especially after third-party involvement.
People come from all over the world, and they have specialists at the other end of the world to help if needed.
Senior Consultant EIM and ECM at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
IBM has a different division that provides consultation to end users, and most customers utilize consultation from IBM, which costs approximately $100k USD to $200k USD.
Chief Architect at NEUSOFT JAPAN
The consulting experts that IBM provides sometimes do not understand the tool very well.
Consultor at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
IBM FileNet excels in scalability and adaptability, effortlessly handling growth, integration, and large-scale operations, meeting diverse business needs.
Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText Content Manager is scalable but challenges arise with large deployments, suggesting planning and using cloud platforms for enhancement.
The bigger products like IBM FileNet can handle billions of documents and thousands of users.
Senior Consultant EIM and ECM at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
With Kubernetes, we can simply add instances of the worker, CPU, or memory without needing deployment.
Chief Architect at NEUSOFT JAPAN
We have about 80 transactional systems connected to IBM FileNet.
Consultor at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.0
IBM FileNet is praised for stability and reliability, though some clients face issues with high-volume ingestion or outdated APIs.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText Content Manager's stability is generally rated high, but integration and scalability issues affect some users' experiences.
I have never encountered a problem of data corruption, losing data files, insecure access, or anything of that nature.
Consulting CTO at a tech consulting company with 1-10 employees
FileNet was restricted to DB2's enterprise edition instead of the standard edition, causing complications.
System integrator at Indépendant
In terms of stability, we haven't experienced any big technical issues or downtime with IBM FileNet.
Senior Consultant EIM and ECM at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
 

Room For Improvement

IBM FileNet users seek improved cloud integration, enhanced usability, automation, analytics, modern interface, and better integration with existing systems.
OpenText Content Manager needs enhancements in integration, usability, search, security, installation, pricing, and service responsiveness for better user experience.
Ease of use with IBM FileNet is a disadvantage of this tool. It is complex and hard to use.
Consultor at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
The response time and resolution of issues by technical support need improvement.
Assistant Vice President at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
From the beginning, we cannot use a REST API; we have to use the IBM FileNet native API, which is quite outdated.
Chief Architect at NEUSOFT JAPAN
 

Setup Cost

IBM FileNet is costly, with high licensing and setup fees; negotiation can reduce prices, yet remains expensive for smaller enterprises.
OpenText Content Manager's licensing is complex and expensive, but negotiation and customization are possible despite high ongoing costs.
We are living in a world where the minimal license from IBM costs anywhere from seventy-five thousand to one hundred thousand US dollars.
Consulting CTO at a tech consulting company with 1-10 employees
The product has become more expensive and requires significant investment for enterprise solutions.
System integrator at Indépendant
The price is high, with yearly subscriptions increasing day by day.
Assistant Vice President at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
 

Valuable Features

IBM FileNet offers scalable document management, seamless integration, automation, strong security, and high performance for efficient business processes.
OpenText Content Manager offers efficient document management with strong search, customization, integration, security, and large-scale enterprise support.
There is a significant ROI from IBM FileNet because before its introduction, the company needed to do all the work manually.
Chief Architect at NEUSOFT JAPAN
The impact when using IBM FileNet is the faster retrieval of documents and how end users are happy with the ability to retrieve documents faster than before in an easier way.
Development Lead at Public Authority for Civil Information
The main features we find impactful are the workflow and document management along with FileNet file stores.
Assistant Vice President at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM FileNet
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
105
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Content Manager
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
8th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
File Archiving (4th), Document Management Software (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Enterprise Content Management category, the mindshare of IBM FileNet is 6.5%, down from 10.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Content Manager is 4.7%, up from 4.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Content Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
IBM FileNet6.5%
OpenText Content Manager4.7%
Other88.8%
Enterprise Content Management
 

Featured Reviews

Shankar-Kambhampaty - PeerSpot reviewer
Consulting CTO at a tech consulting company with 1-10 employees
Business workflows have been automated and document processes are streamlined at large scale
I believe IBM FileNet could be improved or enhanced in the future, specifically the user interface development support, which, despite all the improvements, still feels from the 2010s or 2000s. The current state of the user interface development support and the ability to customize it leaves much to be desired. The backend engine, process engine, and object engine are fantastic. However, the user interface, which is required to provide an impressive experience to the user, is difficult to build. IBM will need to do something about this area. Over time, IBM has made improvements with enhancements through CP4BA and other tools, with which user interfaces can be built. But there is much more is needed. The initial setup process for IBM FileNet requires specialists. IBM FileNet is not a click-click-click deploy kind of product. It has several components that need to be installed in different versions and in a particular order. Additionally, IBM Cloud does not provide a proper experience. The problem is I cannot use IBM Cloud easily. I cannot even get a membership easily. With AWS, I just use my credit card, sign up, and I am done. With IBM Cloud, that is not how it is. They go through all validation processes, and it is a nightmare at times. There are problems around IBM FileNet, not exactly with IBM FileNet itself, but the point is that it is not a click-click-click deploy either on the cloud or on-premise. It requires specialists, and there is a big learning curve toward deploying and managing the whole infrastructure as well as the software. I communicate with the technical support of IBM frequently. I have communicated several times, and frankly, there is much to be desired on that side. When you raise a ticket, it takes 24 to 48 hours for them to respond. We live in a time where business moves at the speed of light. Twenty-four hours is a very long time. You need to be able to get technical support instantaneously. It is not like the more contemporary support models where you get turnaround in minutes, not days.
Maurice Riverso - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Content Management solutions are best for your needs.
881,036 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
9%
Insurance Company
8%
Government
16%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise8
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM FileNet?
The product is robust and can process a lot of documents for enterprise content management.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM FileNet?
From the company's perspective, the licensing cost for IBM FileNet is still affordable. Though the license cost is somewhat expensive, it remains manageable. The company rates it between 3 and 5 be...
What needs improvement with IBM FileNet?
We almost do not utilize the automation capabilities of IBM FileNet to streamline our business processes. The process automation and business automation features are barely used. Currently, we prim...
What do you like most about Micro Focus Content Manager?
An advantage is integration with your IP directory.
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.
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...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Content Manager, HPE Records Manager, HPE Content Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Suncorp Group Limited, St. Vincent Health, Citigroup, SRCSD, and UK Dept for Work and Pensions.
Missouri State Courts
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM FileNet vs. OpenText Content Manager and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,036 professionals have used our research since 2012.