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

M-Files vs OpenText Documentum Content Management 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

M-Files
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Document Management Software (12th)
OpenText Documentum Content...
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Content Management (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Content Management solutions, they serve different purposes. M-Files is designed for Document Management Software and holds a mindshare of 3.9%, down 9.1% compared to last year.
OpenText Documentum Content Management, on the other hand, focuses on Enterprise Content Management, holds 6.1% mindshare, down 12.0% since last year.
Document Management Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
M-Files3.9%
Alfresco9.9%
OpenText Content Manager6.4%
Other79.8%
Document Management Software
Enterprise Content Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Documentum Content Management6.1%
SharePoint11.7%
Alfresco6.7%
Other75.5%
Enterprise Content Management
 

Featured Reviews

LN
Director of IT at JH Kelly
Good workflows, and it is easy to use with a dashboard that improves contract visibility
My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing this product is to do a pilot first. After you do your research, do an actual pilot before you commit because everyone has nuances and you might find out that it is not what you want, or that it doesn't really do what you think it's going to do. It is not the simplest product to use but because of the robustness of its feature set in the ability with the workflows, and the APIs, to do just about anything you can imagine with it, that's very valuable. I wish it was a little easier to use because we have to spend more time than I'd like with new users, teaching them how it works. We try to hide all that from them but the setup time to get everything the way we wanted was probably two months. That is two months in one resource working on it half time a week, but it just took a lot of work to get the metadata set up, to get the workflows set up, and to get all the documents added to the repository. Now we've got versioning and we know where everything's at, the dashboard is great, but don't assume when they tell you that you'll be up and running in two weeks, that that is the truth. It takes much longer than you think. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
FC
Consultant In Risk Management and Performance Improvemenf at Deloitte Risk Advisory
User finds integration useful but seeks improvement in interface intuitiveness
I am satisfied with OpenText Documentum so far; it has great integration capabilities. The connection with our API and SAP is useful, as you can use their SAP interface. The key point that my company decided to go with OpenText Documentum is mostly because you can integrate it with many other tools such as Salesforce.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"M-Files licence model is very flexible. You have the choice of Named User, Concurrent, or SaaS. This gives the business so much room and flexibility to implement new projects whilst maintaining costs and maximizing production."
"Using M-Files means anybody on the executive team to go in and immediately look at a dashboard and know the status of a contract."
"Using M-Files means anybody on the executive team to go in and immediately look at a dashboard and know the status of a contract."
"Two things are excellent in Documentum. One is business process management. The other is its support for metadata."
"OpenText Documentum has improved availability and performance in our organization."
"The stability is very good, and sometimes we have connection issues with the DocBase Java Method Servers or DocBroker services because our project is about 400 megabytes and very big, but the designer works hard to resolve it."
"We primarily use it for storing documents. We host a variety of documents in OpenText Documentum. This includes raw files, analyzed files, and documents in multiple formats."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText Documentum is the versioning."
"It is a very secure system. It is reliable, and that is one of the reasons people manage their content within Documentum. It gives them the confidence that the content is accessible to the right people and not to the wrong people."
"We use it as a repository of our records."
"It is quite good."
 

Cons

"Technical support is probably the weakest part. We had a number of authentication issues and support has been very slow to respond and get us solutions."
"The integration with other products needs to be improved."
"The BPM side should be improved."
"The documentation often leaves customers feeling somewhat frustrated, as OpenText seems to expect customers to remind them constantly about the need for better documentation, as they don't provide clear guidance on their documentation practices."
"The user interface can be a bit more intuitive."
"The price of Documentum could be lower. It's quite high compared to its competitors."
"It needs a better UI and it should also be cloud-ready."
"I would like to see performance improvements, especially regarding slow response times."
"Sometimes DocBroker cannot see the DocBase."
"OpenText Documentum needs to improve its support."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"They have an Optical Character Scanning module but we didn't buy it because it's ridiculously expensive."
"OpenText Documentum's pricing is good."
"OpenText Documentum has announced a new licensing model, which could be more expensive."
"The product is expensive."
"The price is considered affordable now."
"It is quite an expensive product."
"It falls in line with a lot of things that are out there on the market. There is nothing extraordinary in terms of great or bad."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Document Management Software solutions are best for your needs.
896,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
8%
Construction Company
8%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise28
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with OpenText Documentum?
The interface of OpenText Documentum could be more intuitive; sometimes it is hard to find where the information is located.
What is your primary use case for OpenText Documentum?
We are using it to archive the information about our sales.
What advice do you have for others considering OpenText Documentum?
One of my colleagues has found some automation features. It is not my responsibility regarding security features; I am new to this job, so I do not have those responsibilities now. I am not using a...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Dell EMC Documentum, Documentum , Documentum xCelerated Composition Platform
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Crowe UK, Stearns Bank, Head Energy, OMV, TK Elevator
Agility; Bibliotheca Alexandrina; Capitec Bank; Department of Social Development, Republic of South Africa; County of Los Angeles, Department of Human Resources; Fresenius Kabi; Heathrow Airport; Lahey Health; Linde PLC; Milestone Pharma Co. Ltd; National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development; Open Grid Europe GmbH; REPCO NEX Industrial Solutions; Springer Nature; Syngene International; Tata Power DDL; University of Texas Austin
Find out what your peers are saying about Hyland, Conga, SS&C Technologies and others in Document Management Software. Updated: May 2026.
896,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.