We performed a comparison between IBM FileNet and OpenText Content Manager 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."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."
"It is very stable and reliable."
"FileNet can for sure cover the requirements of a medium and a big company, because of the scalability and the possibility to connect with many other IBM products."
"The natural interpolatability with IBM Datacap, that is a key component of our solution, as well as with BPM, and WebSphere Portal. That's why we prefer FileNet instead of some other, less world-class solution."
"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."
"It saves our customers time by 30 to 40 percent by eliminating the time to process paper."
"For a large company, for the robustness, stability, performance, and the growth — that you can grow it within seconds — I would advise using FileNet, without any doubt."
"IBM FileNet has improved our organization with its single collaboration space."
"The tool's implementation has made life easier for customers. It is sold by SAP. The integration between SAP and the solution is good, making it easy to access the documents. It is widely recognized as a market leader in enterprise document management."
"I did not face issues with the product's scalability...The solution's technical support is good."
"An advantage is integration with your IP directory."
"We like how the solution allows us to have retention of records and workflows, as well as its fire plan."
"It has a robust search but has often been difficult for people to learn."
"The product can be integrated with different solutions."
"It may be a little complex to implement and take some effort."
"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."
"IBM doesn't offer new technologies every year, they offer new technologies after five years, for each release of the product."
"I would like to have easier steps for setting up the application. They should have an easy one step process for the whole installation. Right now, you have to know the application well to set it up and have IT expertise."
"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."
"However, the configuration does take a long time. Every company needs its own configuration design. It depends on how many applications are connecting to FileNet. It can take a long time, depending on the application count."
"The application's processing engineer needs to be more advanced."
"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."
"Support could be enhanced. The first line of support consists of individuals who lack experience with some key aspects. When you create a support ticket, the time to resolve the issue may be prolonged because the first person may not understand the system or the solution."
"The product could improve its scalability."
"OpenText Content Manager needs to improve its user interface. Its installation process is difficult and can be made easier."
"The ease of use should be addressed."
"The stability of the solution is an area of concern where improvements can be made."
"Due to very limited use in the industry, vendor and contract support are hard to find."
IBM FileNet is ranked 5th in Enterprise Content Management with 94 reviews while OpenText Content Manager is ranked 10th in Enterprise Content Management with 21 reviews. IBM FileNet is rated 8.2, while OpenText Content Manager is rated 7.6. 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 OpenText Content Manager writes "A document management system that integrates well with SAP, Salesforce and Oracle ". IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM, IBM ECM and Newgen OmniDocs, whereas OpenText Content Manager is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Extended ECM, OpenText Documentum, Microsoft Purview Records Management and Objective ECM. See our IBM FileNet vs. OpenText Content Manager 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.
