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

IBM FileNet vs OpenText Content Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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

IBM FileNet
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
102
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Content Management
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
3rd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Content Collaboration Platforms (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Enterprise Content Management category, the mindshare of IBM FileNet is 10.0%, up from 10.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Content Management is 11.5%, up from 10.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Content Management
 

Featured Reviews

Emad Rizki - PeerSpot reviewer
Facilitates seamless integration for large enterprises with strong deployment capabilities
FileNet was scalable and could be implemented into big multinational organizations. However, it has become very expensive recently. Compared to low-code solutions such as Appian and outsystems, FileNet has gaps, mainly because it requires coding, which is not preferred by clients due to pricing concerns in Pakistan. We transitioned clients to cloud solutions, although FileNet has been strongly integrated with on-prem deployments.
Jaideep MS - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables effective document control yet requires better affordability and clarity
I use extended ECM for procurement, sales, engineering documents, and sometimes invoices and accounts payable or receivable The version controls and the business workspace part integrate well with SAP and OpenText, providing granular level control over who accesses the workspace. The seamless…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"FileNet is very user-friendly... We have business users using and it is quite friendly for them."
"The most valuable features for us are Wex (Watson) for search, Datacap for OCR/ICR, and Automation Anywhere for RPA."
"The beauty is the response time. It is very good nowadays within the platform."
"The document collaboration is very good. There is something called Pink Note where departments can collaborate within the document. It has a built-in viewer to see any type of document."
"It is a user-friendly system and easy to manage for anyone with basic knowledge."
"It has given us a whole new environment to do document management and document storage."
"It has the ability to mix document management and process automation."
"The standout feature for us is undoubtedly the Google-like search functionality, which allows us to search for documents within the system effortlessly. Instead of just querying the document database, this feature retrieves all relevant documents, akin to searching on the internet. It is very easy to use."
"We also have a module on top of the Content Server called WebReports that has been one of the things that helped us facilitate the workflow and give managers good reporting and visibility into where everything is. Being able to use that on top of the Content Server was a big help."
"The solution's automatic document numbering, state management, and process flow are very useful features to go through the full cycle of the document."
"An SAP user can store documents directly into OpenText without a connector."
"The tool's most valuable features are document storage, security, and compliance."
"WebReports has a lot of capabilities that offer good opportunities to customize the applications the way we want to."
"The seamless integration between SAP and OpenText offers a 360-degree view of documents, facilitating a full-text search capability."
"Smart Viewing videos are most valuable for the end users. The end users like the look and feel of Smart View. It's similar to SharePoint, with the latest HTML5 features, filters, and everything. It's like online shopping."
"It's a very good solution."
 

Cons

"The initial setup was pretty complex. There are too many options, and it can get a bit confusing."
"There is some confusion with FileNet workflow. It's not really going into the next level. They are probably replacing it with BPM's workflow. So there's an issue of clarity, the vision for going forward."
"Needs a better administration tool."
"The response time and resolution of issues by technical support need improvement."
"The setup process is very complex."
"The product is expensive."
"There is room for improvement in the file management. It's very complex."
"The area of migrations to new versions must be made easier. It's quite good that they have now begun to improve the API area, to modernize the interfaces, but there's always a very big investment involved in migrating from one version to another. That prohibits rolling out new functionalities to customers. It's not so easy.... In that area, they really must improve."
"Pricing could be improved and the stability or the performance needs improvement, which is very important."
"The response time is not effective, and the staff lacks adequate knowledge."
"The annotation tool needs improvement. In other tools, such as Hyland OnBase, you can easily do annotation. You can easily merge documents. You can easily compare documents, whereas with OpenText, it seems to be a challenge."
"Initially there can be stability issues due to unknown factors such as usage of the system, quantity of documents ingested, load during peak hours."
"The solution should work better with partners and be more developer-friendly."
"I have not used it enough to start running into issues. Some of my technical guys could name a couple of things, but in terms of support, we did have challenges getting good responses from them."
"User interface needs improvement (at least in the version we are using, desktop client)."
"The tool's documentation is not proper and has missing information like steps."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The physical space that we have gained back pays for the service. Therefore, it has reduced our operating costs overall. We have definitely seen ROI. I would estimate $30,000 a year."
"​There are lots of components to the product. Make sure before you invest that you know which components you need.​​"
"The biggest issue is the cost of the FileNet, because the license cost is very high. If a customer doesn't have good technical guides that are aware of the license calculation, they will pay too much. FileNet's license calculation depends on the processor and number of users. So my advice to a new customer is to be very careful with your calculations before purchasing FileNet."
"It is still a leading ECM solution provider, however the cost to implement and maintain are higher than other solutions."
"1. It will be more expensive than estimated to setup. 2. You will need to double the staff while you are running the old system and installing the new system. 3. Depending on the number of documents to be migrated, make sure you understand the potentially massive amount of time and effort required to migrate the existing content to the new platform."
"Yearly, we pay for the maintenance, which is $20,000."
"The solution saves time and money. It helps us to be able to accomplish the goals of our business, as opposed to being tangled in the weeds of what we could do."
"When it comes to pricing, IBM needs to make an effort to improve the cost. That's the main issue regarding use of FinalNet in Columbia."
"OpenText Extended ECM's pricing and licensing are aggressive and confusing for the end customer."
"The product is pricey."
"The tool's pricing is confusing to the end customer."
"OpenText Extended ECM is an expensive solution."
"Both Open Text ECM and IBM File share are expensive."
"The total cost of the product will vary on the capabilities required"
"The solution is expensive."
"It is a little more expensive than our previous solution, but because of the fact that it has become a rallying point for different groups to come under, it might end up paying off better in the long run by not having seven siloed solutions. Even though this one solution is a little pricey, it might eliminate other ones."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Content Management solutions are best for your needs.
857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
10%
Insurance Company
9%
Government
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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?
The API provided by IBM FileNet is a very out-of-date implementation. From the beginning, we cannot use a REST API; we have to use the IBM FileNet native API, which is quite outdated.
What do you like most about OpenText Content Suite Platform?
We also have a module on top of the Content Server called WebReports that has been one of the things that helped us facilitate the workflow and give managers good reporting and visibility into wher...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OpenText Content Suite Platform?
The cost is a significant factor that may deter medium-sized businesses from using OpenText extended ECM.
What needs improvement with OpenText Content Suite Platform?
The cost of the product could be improved. Currently, there are certain snags in document viewing, and communication from the pre-sales team is not clear. The expectation from the customer versus t...
 

Also Known As

No data available
OpenText Content Suite Platform, OpenText Core Share
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Suncorp Group Limited, St. Vincent Health, Citigroup, SRCSD, and UK Dept for Work and Pensions.
ATCO Australia, MSIG Asia, Orica, Salt River Project
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM FileNet vs. OpenText Content Management and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.