Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Content Management vs Oracle Beehive comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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

OpenText Content Management
Ranking in Content Collaboration Platforms
12th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Content Management (3rd)
Oracle Beehive
Ranking in Content Collaboration Platforms
30th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Social Software (20th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Content Collaboration Platforms category, the mindshare of OpenText Content Management is 1.3%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle Beehive is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Content Collaboration Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

Jaideep MS - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables effective document control yet requires better affordability and clarity
I use extended ECM for procurement, sales, engineering documents, and sometimes invoices and accounts payable or receivable The version controls and the business workspace part integrate well with SAP and OpenText, providing granular level control over who accesses the workspace. The seamless…
MA
Has an excellent Database Management System and high level of services, performance, and availability
We will need to implement prototypes in our data warehouse. We will have to implement and to support some different types of files like video, audio, pictures, and non-structured data. So we are working on that. We would like better integration for data security. We will have many partners, eight or nine external partners. We will still use our system to upgrade our warehouse. But with many partners, the data warehouse will not be unique. It will be a distributed data platform. So we would need and we are looking for many services to better manage the integrity and the use of all of the data. We are receiving all these data from trains and trucks that are working on the highways and on the roads. We will have to implement some facilities to adequately use all this data at a really high volume coming from IoT. So we are not choosing that and we will have to implement some services. Right now, we don't have any monitoring. We do have major density and access control, but when a user is in our environment, we do not have the services to really measure what he is doing. I will have to report in three months on the project and its evolution. I don't have the financials and the best practices regarding the financial models with costs and benefits for a major data platform with many partners. We will know what it will cost, but we will have to define some benefits because when I will be at the treasury board asking for a major project, they will ask me what would the benefits from that will be. I'm doing research into best practices. I know that the U.S. government has a platform like the one we want to build. It is a bigger one, from what I understand. I think that the state of California and maybe the state of New York has the type of platform we want to put in place. I would like to present more than just an article. I would like to have a reference model, to really be on target by showing the benefits that are possible down the road.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"WebReports has a lot of capabilities that offer good opportunities to customize the applications the way we want to."
"An SAP user can store documents directly into OpenText without a connector."
"Being able to search is valuable. Its search is pretty powerful. We are able to search for specific text, and it points us to the document that has that text. That is pretty powerful."
"The seamless integration between SAP and OpenText offers a 360-degree view of documents, facilitating a full-text search capability."
"The ability to add metadata and use that to categorize information is a valuable feature of OpenText Extended ECM."
"We use Core Share to share documents with external auditors or with vendors, and that prevents them from being able to get into the whole system. It is useful."
"We can configure the solution with any industry's products per customer requirements."
"The engineering document management system is one of the most valuable features."
"We have really high level of services, performance, availability, and it is stable. Everything works together really well."
"This solution has automated protection from downtime. High-availability is built into every component, and the backups are completely automated."
 

Cons

"We had some issues with scalability in the production. So, I would rate it a five out of ten."
"We are looking for new, advanced UI features. Currently, the UI does not look great."
"More out-of-the-box automation features should be added to OpenText Extended ECM."
"The architecture needs improvement, as it's complex."
"The solution needs to improve the user interface."
"When it comes to addressing complex use cases, three or four years ago, we ended up purchasing an additional OpenText product called AppWorks because we started to run into some limitations with the workflow that can be done in Extended ECM. It was a little limiting, so we ended up getting another product."
"User interface needs improvement (at least in the version we are using, desktop client)."
"The solution's performance, stability, and consistency could be improved."
"The price of licenses is high and should be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive."
"The product is pricey."
"The total cost of the product will vary on the capabilities required"
"OpenText Extended ECM is an expensive solution."
"Both Open Text ECM and IBM File share are expensive."
"The pricing is costly. It's costly to integrate with Office 365 and to go back and forth with the sales team."
"The tool's pricing is confusing to the end customer."
"It is a little more expensive than our previous solution, but because of the fact that it has become a rallying point for different groups to come under, it might end up paying off better in the long run by not having seven siloed solutions. Even though this one solution is a little pricey, it might eliminate other ones."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Content Collaboration Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
858,038 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about OpenText Content Suite Platform?
We also have a module on top of the Content Server called WebReports that has been one of the things that helped us facilitate the workflow and give managers good reporting and visibility into wher...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OpenText Content Suite Platform?
The cost is a significant factor that may deter medium-sized businesses from using OpenText extended ECM.
What needs improvement with OpenText Content Suite Platform?
The cost of the product could be improved. Currently, there are certain snags in document viewing, and communication from the pre-sales team is not clear. The expectation from the customer versus t...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

OpenText Content Suite Platform, OpenText Core Share
Beehive
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ATCO Australia, MSIG Asia, Orica, Salt River Project
Oracle
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Content Management vs. Oracle Beehive and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
858,038 professionals have used our research since 2012.