Objective ECM vs OpenText Content Manager vs SharePoint comparison

Objective and OpenText are both solutions in the Enterprise Content Management category. Objective is ranked #24, while OpenText is ranked #9 with an average rating of 8.5. Objective holds a 1.2% mindshare in ECM, compared to OpenText’s 4.3% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution.

Objective ECM

Read 1 Objective ECM review

576 Views
530 Comparison Views

0% willing to recommend

OpenText Content Manager

Read 23 OpenText Content Manager reviews

2,771 Views
2,051 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

SharePoint

Read 165 SharePoint reviews

10,950 Views
6,023 Comparison Views

79% willing to recommend

Objective ECM

OpenText Content Manager

SharePoint

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Objective ECM, OpenText Content Manager, and SharePoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, IBM, Adobe and others in Enterprise Content Management.

To learn more, read our detailed Enterprise Content Management Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Enterprise Content Management

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 885,837 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Enterprise Content Management category, the mindshare of Objective ECM is 1.2%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Content Manager is 4.3%, up from 4.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SharePoint is 11.6%, down from 16.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Enterprise Content Management Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
SharePoint	11.6%
OpenText Content Manager	4.3%
Objective ECM	1.2%
Other	82.9%

Enterprise Content Management

Featured Reviews

it_user144594

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.

Read full review

Maurice Riverso

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.

Read full review

reviewer2811600

SDE 1 at a educational organization with 501-1,000 employees

Centralized document governance has boosted collaboration and made knowledge sharing structured

SharePoint is a powerful platform, but there are a few areas where I think it could be improved, such as user experience. For new users, the interface and navigation can feel quite complex, specifically when working with multiple sites and document libraries. Another improvement would be search functionalities. While it is good sometimes, it does not always return the most relevant result unless a document is very well-structured and tagged. Also, initial setup and customizations can be time-consuming and may require technical expertise, specifically when configuring workflows or permissions. From a modern development perspective, tighter and more seamless integrations with tools including Power Automate and better support for custom backend integrations through APIs could make it more efficient. Overall, simplifying usability and enhancing search and integration capability would make SharePoint even stronger. One additional area I would appreciate improvement would be performance and responsiveness, especially when dealing with a large document library. Sometimes loading or navigating through large datasets can feel quite slow. Another aspect is permissions management. While it is very powerful, it can become complex to manage at scale, specifically when there are multiple levels of access across teams and projects. Improving developer experience would also be beneficial. Making customization, API integrations, and extensions more straightforward would help teams, especially backend developers, leverage SharePoint more efficiently.

Read full review

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."

"This is a wonderful product with many options."

"This creates a more sustainable, competitive, government compliant, and secure solution in the long term which pays off on the investment."

"It has a robust search but has often been difficult for people to learn."

"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."

"The product can be integrated with different solutions."

"Eliminated the need for paper records."

"Sharing of documents, reduction of duplication, and the ability to manage retention, disposition and overall records management have been significant benefits for our organization."

"Go for it."

Cons

"Upgrades can be nightmares, partly because there can be architecture and engine changes in minor version increments."

"Many projects I've worked on encounter issues in production relating to load balancing and throttling where systems cannot cope with the volumes and capacity of transactional processing."

"It's not very good at providing stable and robust add-ins to Microsoft."

"Microsoft Office disabling the HPE Records Manager integration is an issue."

"We've had it for a year now, and since we started implementation it has been, to say softly, a nightmare."

"Many users have expressed that it is too hard to find what they are looking for."

"Support could be enhanced. The first line of support consists of individuals who lack experience with some key aspects. When you create a support ticket, the time to resolve the issue may be prolonged because the first person may not understand the system or the solution."

"OpenText Content Manager needs to improve its user interface. Its installation process is difficult and can be made easier."

"This web client requires more refinement to be viable as a desktop client replacement."

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."

"The data classification and search elements are cheap."

"It is pretty reasonable. It is $5 per month per user. We have 12 users now, so it is about $60 per month."

"The pricing is competitive."

"They are about an eight in comparison to other similar products."

"We have purchased add-ons to handle multiple site collections, form creation, and design."

"As usual, Microsoft’s licensing structures don’t really seem to fit the needs of their products. This leads to always paying for a project you will never use fully or always be adding to."

"The product is reasonably priced."

"The platform has medium pricing."

More SharePoint pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Content Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

885,837 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Comparison Review

it_user8925

Developer with 51-200 employees

Aug 23, 2013

Jive vs Sharepoint vs Drupal Commons

At Mediacurrent we often get requests to compare Drupal to other platforms used for intranet sites and social business platforms (like https://dev.twitter.com/ for example). This is often referred to as “Social Business Software”, which has grown in popularity in recent years. I decided to do a…

Read full review

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

26%

Government

20%

Financial Services Firm

Construction Company

Government

12%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

University

Government

11%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Construction Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	8
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	8

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	80
Midsize Enterprise	39
Large Enterprise	81

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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....

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SharePoint?

I do not know the difference between the prices of the two solutions; I did not work on this project.

See all answers

What needs improvement with SharePoint?

It is not really better; we use the same solution as before with Google Drive and the Google App solution. Sometimes ...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for SharePoint?

I create a data warehouse and establish a link between different applications. For data exchange, the vendor is Oracle.

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText Content Management vs Objective ECM

Compared 34% of the time

Nuxeo vs Objective ECM

Compared 16% of the time

Atlassian Confluence vs Objective ECM

Compared 12% of the time

OpenText eDOCS Content Management vs Objective ECM

Compared 7% of the time

More Objective ECM Competitors

Alfresco vs OpenText Content Manager

Compared 11% of the time

IBM FileNet vs OpenText Content Manager

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Content Management vs OpenText Content Manager

Compared 6% of the time

Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management vs OpenText Content Manager

Compared 5% of the time

OpenText Documentum Content Management vs OpenText Content Manager

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Content Manager Competitors

OpenText Documentum Content Management vs SharePoint

Compared 9% of the time

Box vs SharePoint

Compared 5% of the time

OpenText Content Management vs SharePoint

Compared 4% of the time

IBM FileNet vs SharePoint

Compared 4% of the time

Alfresco vs SharePoint

Compared 3% of the time

More SharePoint Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Enterprise Content Management

March 2026

Download Objective ECM product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Content Manager

March 2026

Download OpenText Content Manager product report

Buyer's Guide

SharePoint

March 2026

Download SharePoint product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus Content Manager, HPE Records Manager, HPE Content Manager

SharePoint 2007, SharePoint 2010

Overview

Objective ECM is a comprehensive suite of modules that connects content to people and the business systems they work with on a daily basis. Designed to maximise user adoption with zero training, Objective ECM delivers a simple, fast and personal experience that can be shared on a vast scale.

Objective

OpenText Content Manager, formerly Records Manager, is a governance-based enterprise content management system designed to help government agencies, regulated industries and global organizations manage their business content from creation to disposal. Regardless of how you create and collaborate on your content, Content Manager gives you the ability to leverage accurate, contextual, and complete information throughout its lifecycle. Managing your content in this way helps you significantly improve services to your customers, business decisions and insight for future strategy.

OpenText

SharePoint is a Microsoft-based platform for building web applications. It covers a widerange of capabilities and while it is appropriate for experienced webdevelopers, even non-technical minded users can easily navigate through thesystem and execute functions such as collaborating data, managing documents andfiles, creating websites, managing social networking solutions, and automatingworkflow.

Major areas that SharePoint deals with are websites,communities, content, search, insights, and composites. The purpose is to give usersthe ability to create or develop these key business components on their owneven without technical knowledge of, for example, how to build a website or howto integrate coding. Configuring SharePoint into a business's system is meantto cut out all of the complicated steps, and pave the way for easierimplementation all around.

Microsoft

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

Toyota, Aeroports de Paris, ASBBank Ltd., Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals, CambridgeshireConstabulary, D&M Group, NPL Construction Company, and The Regional Municipality of Niagara.

Buyer's Guide

Enterprise Content Management

March 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, IBM, Adobe and others in Enterprise Content Management. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

885,837 professionals have used our research since 2012.