Coming October 25: PeerSpot Awards will be announced! Learn more
2014-08-04T10:34:00Z
Avigail Sugarman - PeerSpot reviewer
Community Manager at PeerSpot (formerly IT Central Station)
  • 7
  • 11

Would Alfresco give an organization more benefits in terms of cost, features & security as compared to Sharepoint?

What are your thoughts?

4
PeerSpot user
4 Answers
Prashaanth  Kesavan - PeerSpot reviewer
Director - US Operations at Aspirant Labs
User
2022-04-21T22:46:17Z
21 April 22

Hi.


I would suggest Ezofis which has a lot of customization and ease of use features compared to Alfresco.


Even the pricing is better compared to ECM products in the market.

PeerSpot user
Consultant
Vendor
2014-08-07T19:41:36Z
07 August 14

I fully agree with dylan's view.
In France it will be easier to find SharePoint competencies than Alfresco's.
Note that real high level SP competencies are very busy.
Fundamentally, I would say : if you have internal tech team with strong Java skills, alfresco could be a good choice; if not, prepare a strong budget with an integrator.
Out of the box without technical development, SP remains more powerfull and let users and power users realize sites they could not realize with Alfresco.
By the way, you should choose ten enterprise version of Alfreco, Community version is only for testing or for very small projects.

PeerSpot user
Senior ECM Specialist at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Consultant
2014-08-05T06:59:46Z
05 August 14

I fully agree with the Dylan's view. It all depends on what your specific requirements are. The best way to go about comparing the two is to do a request for proposal based on a scenario and to see what the vendors propose.

it_user143376 - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant with 201-500 employees
Vendor
2014-08-05T04:21:28Z
05 August 14

What features are you needing and what skills does the organisation have? Alfresco and SharePoint customisation are quite difference skill sets. In terms of cost, both have a free edition (Alfresco Community Edition & SharePoint 2013 Foundation Edition), but only enterprise editions contain the records management features.

Critically SharePoint is a platform with no compliance whereas Alfresco is a product with DoD 5015.2 compliance, The SharePoint philosophy is to unite all legacy systems in a web interface that can be accessed from anywhere. To that end almost any data can be connected to SharePoint - as opposed to replicated which would increase storage costs and system complexity - and used in business process automation.

The enterprise edition of Alfresco features records management, but in SharePoint you also get features such as e-Discovery of both SharePoint and Exchange data.

In most geographic areas it's easier to get SharePoint resources than Alfresco, and that also affects costs. On the other hand, Alfresco's interface is often preferred to SharePoint and that can affect adoption. Adoption is usually the biggest problem regardless of the technology choice.

Alfresco aggregates various search providers, but SharePoint has custom search verticals and people directory search built-in, using existing Active Directory data. The search configuration in Alfresco is via XML files but via the web interface in SharePoint: Both are easy but you would need access to the server console to change it in Alfresco which might bridge security boundaries in large organisations.

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Box, OpenText and others in Enterprise Content Management. Updated: September 2022.
633,184 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Related Questions
TR
User at About the House
Dec 19, 2021
Hi, I work at a governmental institution. Currently, I'm researching whether we can replace Micro Focus Content Manager (for CMS) with Microsoft Sharepoint? What's your opinion about it? Please also elaborate on "why". Thanks.
See 2 answers
Simon Rawson - PeerSpot reviewer
Director and Senior Consultant at PowerMark Solutions
06 October 21
Not if you are managing physical records in CM. You would need an add-in for M365 such as AvePoint Cloud Records or RecordPoint Records365.  Both help another important issue - M365 Compliance and SharePoint Online are complex user interfaces.  In a lot of organizations, records management staff don't have direct access to RM functions, with IT doing the administration based on service requests from IM. Both add-ins hand usability and RM functions back to the IM team.
JG
User at FDIC
19 December 21
What are the records management requirements that you are using to vet and determine the best capability?   Should there be requirements to maintain temporary and/or permanent records?
PeerSpot user
Senior ECM Specialist at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Aug 18, 2014
What in your opinion is the primary reason why Enterprise Content Management implementations are struggling to survive past the ECM project phase? Please share your own experience. If you are able to point me to credible resources in this regard, it would also be much appreciated.
2 out of 12 answers
PeerSpot user
Architect at a aerospace/defense firm
08 July 14
Buy in from the general worker population is really the key. The capability must be attractive, easy to use, and support their business requirements. There must be a perceived need and the ECM as the perceived answer.
PeerSpot user
Partner at Microsoft
08 July 14
The primary reason ECM implementations struggle to survive past the ECM project phase is that they are not supported in an iterative fashion. It's like entropy - if you don't constantly shape and put effort into improving re-use and the organization of your organizations IP (in this case enterprise content) then over time the structures, and effort expended no longer are enough to sustain the shared taxonomy, language, and understanding that comes with effective ECM implementations. One of the biggest offenders here is when a project involves a technology upgrade. Effort is expended in great amounts, but energy on *sustained* adoption is less of a priority. What's more often the 'technology' is where the ownership lines end. When you think of the costs for these kinds of typical ECM projects - if you isolate the cost of 'getting more out of the content in your enterprise' from the technology projects that enable this - you realize the projects that go over on budget, are difficult to scope, and that need buy in and investment from many areas of the business - are the ones that 'get more' out of the IP and content in the organization - which really should be seen more of a knowledge tax that you pay continually - than in single investment projects. Hopefully that makes sense - there is wonderful research on this subject, and I can assure you the issue really is just investment, sustainment, and continual engagement related for most projects. It's why many organizations now are moving into models where adoption (beyond activation), and consumption is something that can be easily measured and managed - think of SaaS ECM providers where the 'promise of value' is much closer in line with the 'realization of value' since at any time a user, department or organization can simply stop paying those subscription based licenses - the good thing is that both technology vendors and consultancies are shifting to models where there needs to be constant diligence to ensure the organization is getting the most out of their ECM investments. :)
Download Free Report
Download our free SharePoint Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2022.
DOWNLOAD NOW
633,184 professionals have used our research since 2012.