"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."
"You can move workloads in between sub-servers so that you don't overload a portion of the server."
"Integration within the solution is very good."
"Developers like us have an upgraded interface. That interface does not work in the process that we have today. It hangs and is not user-friendly."
"The speed of the backup should be enhanced."
"The solution should be offered in Persian. Right now, our version is in English, and there's a bit of a language barrier between the users and the product."
IBM FileNet is ranked 6th in Enterprise Content Management with 1 review while Oracle WebCenter is ranked 5th in Enterprise Content Management with 2 reviews. IBM FileNet is rated 7.0, while Oracle WebCenter is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM FileNet writes "Offers good security but the interface hangs and isn't user-friendly". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle WebCenter writes "Has the ability to move workloads in between sub-servers but the backups should be faster ". IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Content Suite Platform, OpenText Documentum, IBM ECM and Adobe Experience Manager, whereas Oracle WebCenter is most compared with SharePoint, Oracle Content and Experience Cloud, WebLogic Suite, Adobe Experience Manager and OpenText Documentum.
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.
