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

Objective ECM vs OpenText Content Manager 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

Objective ECM
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
26th
Average Rating
4.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Content Manager
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
8th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
File Archiving (3rd), Document Management Software (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Enterprise Content Management category, the mindshare of Objective ECM is 1.2%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Content Manager is 3.9%, down from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Content Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Content Manager3.9%
Objective ECM1.2%
Other94.9%
Enterprise Content Management
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Maurice Riverso - PeerSpot reviewer
Records Management Officer at ANZPAA
Our our official repository and it has disposal management and retention management
The security architecture is the only problem as it's a little bit complex and too torturous at times. So it could be improved a little bit, but it is regarded as a very good system in Australia. It's probably overly subscribed. Also, what's missing is what people would like, which is basically online collaboration. That's a problem. But it has so many other things to offer that SharePoint, I'm sure, will not have. So, that will be an interesting issue to come up. It's not very good at providing stable and robust add-ins to Microsoft. That's a bit of a problem with Content Manager. They're kind of very volatile. So, that's been definitely something that could be improved.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The ability to have duplicate document names is very useful for content migration."
"The tool's implementation has made life easier for customers. It is sold by SAP. The integration between SAP and the solution is good, making it easy to access the documents. It is widely recognized as a market leader in enterprise document management."
"The product can be integrated with different solutions."
"We are required to have a robust Records Management system, and it does this job."
"I did not face issues with the product's scalability...The solution's technical support is good."
"This creates a more sustainable, competitive, government compliant, and secure solution in the long term which pays off on the investment."
"The product allows us to run our Notice of Destructions seamlessly and produces our annual folders with ease."
"Eliminated the need for paper records."
"There many ways that this application has improved our organization. The most significant is the reduction in paper generation and the ability to electronically annotate and manage all our documents."
 

Cons

"Upgrades can be nightmares, partly because there can be architecture and engine changes in minor version increments."
"The stability of the solution is an area of concern where improvements can be made."
"The product could improve its scalability."
"It has extensive configuration restrictions for administrators and file extension limitations. Clunky in look and feel."
"This web client requires more refinement to be viable as a desktop client replacement."
"We now have 2 proxies, 5 distribution servers and about 40 IDOL engines with tons of data on CEs. It is a scalable solution, but we see performance degradation and maintenance nightmares."
"Functionality gets removed as new versions are released."
"Microsoft Office disabling the HPE Records Manager integration is an issue."
"This system eats up a lot of staff time for support, administration, and use."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The solution's licensing cost depends on the customer domain. Though its costs are high, the product is worth the money. You have to pay a one-time cost and support costs."
"The fees incurred are for the licensing and maintenance."
"I rate the product price an eight or nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. The solution is expensive."
"I would suggest that you do a thorough evaluation of all competing products and look for support for these products in your local area."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Content Management solutions are best for your needs.
894,830 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
22%
Government
20%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Government
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise8
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Content Manager?
Pricing is a disadvantage as it is very expensive, especially in this market.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Content Manager?
Pricing is an issue, as it is too expensive. Support and services need to be more user-friendly. The support has been slow, and there is room for improvement. Additionally, they could improve build...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Content Manager?
We are a system integrator. We deal with client requirements to determine the best solutions that should be deployed. Our primary use case for OpenText Content Manager is managing enterprise conten...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Content Manager, HPE Records Manager, HPE Content Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

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
Missouri State Courts
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, IBM, Adobe and others in Enterprise Content Management. Updated: April 2026.
894,830 professionals have used our research since 2012.