Microsoft Office SharePoint Server vs SAP Jam comparison

"The solution is pretty easy to use for the most part."

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

"Sharing information is the best feature or advantage of Microsoft Office SharePoint Server based on my experience."

"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."

"Some of the best features with Microsoft Office SharePoint Server are that it is easy to use, security is easy, and it's all integrated into the university's security systems."

"Microsoft Office SharePoint Server is a scalable solution because our applications are not staying in one place, year on year we are increasing users, so definitely it can scale with what we need."

"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."

"Ability to collaborate with others in one location."

"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."

"I would like to see the integration with Teams reinforced."

"Technical support could be improved. They are not fast enough, especially when we'll go deeper in the product itself. More complex issues make it very tough to find someone that can help you."

"I would like to see more Agile techniques and seamless integration with other applications."

"The user interface needs improvement because there is a lot of stuff in there. I use five to eight navigation buttons. It should be more user-friendly. Frequently used menu items should be arranged in a proper way. That would be helpful."

"Probably because I may not have extensively used the advanced search, the search option can sometimes get a little difficult to find out what exactly you're looking for."

"Many of our customers would like to see an OCR feature, so it would be very good to have this in a future release."

"The permission management features need improvement."

"The solution needs to have more flexibility. The classic version had more flexibility, however, the modern version has many more limitations."

"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."