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
6.5
IBM FileNet boosts productivity and efficiency, reduces costs, and enhances document management, yielding significant financial gains and competitive advantage.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText Content Manager improves efficiency and security, though requires more support and integration compared to modern solutions.
There is a significant ROI from IBM FileNet because before its introduction, the company needed to do all the work manually.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.1
IBM FileNet's support is praised for responsiveness and partnerships, despite occasional delays and challenges like database implementation 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.
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.
The product-level support is better now than before.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.3
IBM FileNet excels in scalability and adaptability, supporting extensive users and data, suitable for multinational enterprises with diverse 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.
With Kubernetes, we can simply add instances of the worker, CPU, or memory without needing deployment.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
IBM FileNet is valued for its reliable performance and stability, with improvements noted in recent upgrades and infrastructure configurations.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText Content Manager's stability is generally rated high, but integration and scalability issues affect some users' experiences.
FileNet was restricted to DB2's enterprise edition instead of the standard edition, causing complications.
In terms of stability, we haven't experienced any big technical issues or downtime with IBM FileNet.
 

Room For Improvement

IBM FileNet needs enhanced hybrid cloud support, integration, automation, analytics, mobile experience, simplifying APIs, and reducing costs.
OpenText Content Manager needs enhancements in integration, usability, search, security, installation, pricing, and service responsiveness for better user experience.
The response time and resolution of issues by technical support need improvement.
From the beginning, we cannot use a REST API; we have to use the IBM FileNet native API, which is quite outdated.
There are only a few products large enterprises can choose from, and it doesn't really matter which one as it often depends on the consultants and the team implementing the solution.
 

Setup Cost

IBM FileNet's high pricing affects licensing, with costs manageable for large enterprises but challenging for smaller businesses.
OpenText Content Manager's licensing is complex and expensive, but negotiation and customization are possible despite high ongoing costs.
Though the license cost is somewhat expensive, it remains manageable.
FileNet and similar enterprise-level tools require substantial costs, starting in the millions.
The price is high, with yearly subscriptions increasing day by day.
 

Valuable Features

IBM FileNet provides scalability, robust document management, and seamless integration with extensive automation, governance, and workflow tools for efficient operations.
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.
The best part of FileNet includes its advantages and most valuable features, which are its scalability and stability.
The main features we find impactful are the workflow and document management along with FileNet file stores.
 

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 Manager
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
File Archiving (4th), Document Management Software (1st)
 

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 Manager is 4.6%, up from 3.2% 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.
Maurice Riverso - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
856,873 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
20%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

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 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: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.