No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Laserfiche vs Objective ECM comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Laserfiche
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
22nd
Average Rating
10.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Document Management Software (9th)
Objective ECM
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
24th
Average Rating
4.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Enterprise Content Management category, the mindshare of Laserfiche is 2.1%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Objective ECM is 1.2%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Content Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Laserfiche2.1%
Objective ECM1.2%
Other96.7%
Enterprise Content Management
 

Featured Reviews

CB
Consultant DMS/ECM at NSI IT Software & Services (Cegeka Group)
A powerful solution that offers BPM and automation to assist with our digital transformation
We use this solution for DMS, ECM, scan and imaging, plus workflows and forms solutions spread over the entire company This is a very complete and powerful solution. No code: We can address all of the features and functionalities with computer-minded people without having to call the IT Dept or…
it_user144594 - PeerSpot reviewer
Engineer at a tech services company with 5,001-10,000 employees
The ability to have duplicate document names is very useful for content migration. During trouble-shooting you will discover that the logs are all over the place.
During trouble-shooting you will discover that the logs are all over the place - even on servers you would not expect - and fragmented into dozens of files, yet the detail is excellent. It's Java execution logs, so needs a bit of interpretation skill, though. Speaking of Java, the web interface requires JRE and degrades in mysterious ways without it: No warnings or graceful fall-back. The web UI is otherwise VERY awkward and limited in functionality. The Windows client on the other hand is extremely dated but rich in functionality - not pretty, though. Despite the API, there is no vendor support for integration into any other systems except through HTML frames.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This is a very complete and powerful solution."
"This is a very complete and powerful solution."
"The ability to have duplicate document names is very useful for content migration."
 

Cons

"We would like to see more features for RPA and AI."
"We would like to see more features for RPA and AI."
"Upgrades can be nightmares, partly because there can be architecture and engine changes in minor version increments."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Content Management solutions are best for your needs.
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
19%
University
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
7%
Manufacturing Company
28%
Government
21%
Construction Company
7%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

D.L. Evans, College of the Desert, Community Action, Tompkins County, Hanson McClain, Olmsted County, Old Line Bank, Steinhafels, CIRCOR Pibiviesse
ACT Planning and Land Authority, Australian Department of Defence, Barwon Water, City of Darebin, Delta Electricity, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, Health Corporate Network, Hobsons Bay City Council, LandCorp, Port of Brisbane
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, IBM, Adobe and others in Enterprise Content Management. Updated: March 2026.
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.