Oracle WebCenter Reviews

The most valuable features to me are the ability to create contents with the interface, such as creating database tables. The product's JSP APIs and REST APIs are also very useful.

Rules for contents personalization, workflows, publishing content, and the satellite cache all have room for improvement!

I have been using Oracle WebCenter Sites for 10 years.

In a cluster environment, we had stability issues with the satellite cache.

We did not have any scalability issues.

The technical support we received was excellent.

I used a free OWS solution.

The installation in a WebLogic environment is straightforward.

It is an expensive product. I would try to negotiate a better price.

Before choosing Oracle WebCenter Sites, we evaluated Vignette and some free products.

When you start a project, you should consult early on with your developers.

• Worklist
• Process Spaces
• Discussion Board
• Document Viewer
• Blogs
• Wiki

These features are great components in WebCenter Collaboration for presenting various middleware and ECM functionalities to the end user in a single portal application. This also gives a seamless experience with single sign-on capabilities.

It has helped us internally to collaborate better.

UCX needs improvement and better APIs for integration with custom and third-party apps; better layouts for mobility.

I have used it for over six years now. (I started with 11g.)

It can get slower under load.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support is 8/10.

I have previously used IBM WebSphere portal.

Initial setup was simple for standard things, but for customisation and third-party integration, it can get cumbersome.

Pricing and licensing depends upon the other FMW products you use along with this.

We are an Oracle gold partner, so we didn't evaluate other products.

It has excellent features and possibilities for collaboration; you will need skilled resources, though.

• Java-based content management
• Runtime customizations

The main feature and idea of dynamically creating navigation, pages and portals are overall good and very valuable. Also, adjusting portal design (skinning) is quite easy. Then there is the WebCenter Content Repository, where you register the file system folder and can manage files of the portal. That feature is quite good too.

Defining permissions and access rights is also quite straightforward, as you can use JavaServer Faces expressions.

We developed a portal using the framework. Not all of the features were used though.

Some parts of the product seemed to be unstable; various exceptions which lead to reaching out for Oracle support. Using WSRP (Web service remote portlets) seems to be messy in terms of application deployment.

I have used it for three years.

I certainly encountered stability issues;

Not sure if they are exactly WebCenter related, but sometimes unknown exceptions were raised on runtime or deployment that could be resolved by restarting the server.

Regarding WSRP: Web Service for remote portlets feature generates metadata
files during deployment so that WSRP portlet can be used.

However, this leads to a situation where the application cannot be packaged and customized via deployment plan, rather it needs to be packaged during deployment.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support is decent, but slow.

No content management solutions were used before.

Initial setup was more or less straightforward, as the official IDE - JDeveloper was used.

I was not the one to make decisions. One competitor to consider would be Liferay Portal, for instance.

Become as familiar with the product and features as possible before using it. Custom solutions might be difficult to implement.

The most valuable feature for us has been the ability to use it for planning our API, work orders, and PO stored in just one instance. It's been difficult integrating it for our applications, but we've been able to go live with PO and it's working.

It's helped us in a couple of areas. First, it's increased our efficiency, and second, it's eliminated human errors. Previously, requests were sent out on paper, although a certain percentage of them had to be manually entered into the system. This resulted in lots of errors and it required a lot of labor. With WebCenter, we can scan and capture all the information correctly, which is then imported into the system automatically. This means that there's no human interaction between WebCenter and the system, so it eliminates labor and headcount, and increases efficiency.

We are OK with WebCenter, but we're not very happy with the API because when the devices come from the customer, they're not able to scan and read properly. We're working with Oracle on this issue right now.

We've gone live with WebCenter, but we haven't been able to use the API, so we're still in the process of implementing that. We're having a hard time and feel that Oracle could offer us more support to resolve the issue.

We have a lot of pain with instabilities and are not getting enough support from Oracle.

We are in the learning stages, so we don't know much about WebCenter in terms of its ability to scale for our needs.

We are having a hard time getting proper support to help us complete our implementation.

It seems complex for us, especially since we aren't getting enough support from Oracle for the setup.

We're setting it up with our in-house team and we're trying to get Oracle to provide us with support in doing so.