Microsoft Office SharePoint Server vs SAP Jam comparison

"It is a decent tool for collaboration, especially if you are already using other Office products."

"The solution is scalable. You can do both horizontal and vertical scaling."

"The implementation and configuring of the resolution are very easy in the online version."

"The solution's most valuable features is its document management. It allows sharing with external users and integrates well with Office apps and Microsoft Flow."

"The collaboration, the ability for multiple users to work on a single document."

"The level of stability is good."

"It's a very robust product."

"The most valuable features for us are their document management list and hybrid forms. and We also use third party ad-dons to achieve workflows and other recent apps."

"One notable feature is the "improvement training," which allows you to define groups, facilitate information sharing, enable participant rating, and establish rankings. This enables you to identify which participants are actively engaged and sharing information and which ones are less active."

"The ability to preview files in different formats should be expanded to include formats such as embedded postscript (EPS), AutoCAD, and Adobe Acrobat PDF."

"This solution is not very stable. It is useful to arrange data but it's not the best for big data. Sometimes we have issues with our reports as a result."

"The solution is like a CRM, so the initial setup is complex. It takes a few days to deploy the solution and the length of time depends on how large the company's topology is and what the client's demands are."

"The GUI is outdated."

"The solution needs to be more collaborative. I believe they are just coming up with the themes for this right now."

"Workflows could be simplified."

"The permission management features need improvement."

"The search feature needs improvement. I can never find the information I need when I use it."

"I'm hopeful for more integrations with SAP JAM in the future."

"Pricing plans may be flexible depending on volume usage and your corporate relationship with Microsoft."

"It can be expensive for on-premises deployments, especially when you have to support SQL Server as your backend database. That's where the cost comes into play. SQL Server has its own licensing, which Microsoft keeps on changing. Therefore, it can become costly. In the earlier versions of SharePoint, version 2007 or 2010, they had an express version where the SQL Server licensing was free. It wasn't like a full-blown SharePoint. It was only a slimmed-down version. It used to be whatever your hardware costs. You would install the free software and work with it, but you were very limited in what you could do in SharePoint. If you wanted the SharePoint Enterprise Server with all the bells and whistles, then you had to pay more to get the SQL Server license based on the number of users or servers. The subscription model is different for cloud deployments. Licensing is per user and per month. The cost also depends on the storage required. If you have a lot of sites or documents, then you need to expand it based on your needs."

"There are some aggressive discounts offered by Microsoft for organizations that are not for profit, which we are, and it makes it quite attractive to consider."

"One of the reasons why we don't recommend the cloud version of SharePoint is the cost. With the on premise version, you pay for the license once. For the cloud version, there is a recurring fee. It is very expensive. They expect everyone to pay $20 or $30 per user per month."

"You need to pay for additional languages. It is somewhat expensive and the payment frequency can be annual or monthly, depending on the choice. There are no extra costs beyond the standard license and implementation fees."