We performed a comparison between IBM FileNet and OpenText Extended ECM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Content Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product is very stable."
"It puts governance in place around the content and processes. Access levels can be set to certain parts of the document based on role level."
"The key feature for us is that it keeps our content store small. That helps our DBAs when they have to do the backups of our audit system, or of the content store."
"The document collaboration is very good. There is something called Pink Note where departments can collaborate within the document. It has a built-in viewer to see any type of document."
"It has a very broad market share and a lot of people know about it."
"The most valuable feature for me is the possibility to share and to collaborate, the possibility to connect FileNet with many other IBM products as well. It helps avoid the possibility of creating "island applications." We have an ecosystem where everything can be interconnected."
"For a large company, for the robustness, stability, performance, and the growth — that you can grow it within seconds — I would advise using FileNet, without any doubt."
"It also helps with compliance and governance issues because it's a datastore that is not modifiable, and you can guarantee that. You cannot guarantee that with a folder-based file structure, where multiple people have access."
"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 where everything is. Being able to use that on top of the Content Server was a big help."
"The integration of a document management platform with many other applications, e.g. SAP, SuccessFactors, Salesforce, SharePoint, etc."
"It's a very good solution."
"OpenText Extended ECM's most valuable features include permissions and security models. I also like the tool's ability to add metadata and use it to categorize information."
"Smart Viewing videos are most valuable for the end users. The end users like the look and feel of Smart View. It's similar to SharePoint, with the latest HTML5 features, filters, and everything. It's like online shopping."
"Being able to tag metadata on documents and being able to have different workspaces in there for our documents is valuable. We do loan documents, and different types of documents have different types of retentions. We are able to categorize based on that, and we are able to do tag searching to find what we are looking for."
"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."
"An SAP user can store documents directly into OpenText without a connector."
"We brought DocuSign into our company's solution three years before. At that time there was no direct integration. We would like to pull documents out from FileNet, push them to DocuSign and, when done, retrieve them and store them back in FileNet. We wrote our own custom solution for that. It would be nice if there was some tool we could have used to do that."
"Our client feels FileNet does not provide them with content searchability. They feel it's cumbersome. They're only using Metadata. If the Metadata is not well-populated, it becomes a problem to retrieve a document."
"I would like to have an offline DR deployment. If that is doable, then it would be a big win."
"For end-users there is a lack of administrative features. The interface of basic FileNet is not very good."
"I would like IBM to improve with each release, continue moving towards a continual, tighter integration, and build solutions that take advantage of all the different modules the platform has from one place."
"We'd like to use the docker, to have it containerized."
"A little better control into the ACLs of FileNet and databases."
"The FileNet API seems like it is very difficult and not transparent."
"There are no additional features that I would like to see. I am pretty happy with it, but their support could be a bit better."
"The initial setup can get really complicated, and it takes time."
"The annotation tool needs improvement. In other tools, such as Hyland OnBase, you can easily do annotation. You can easily merge documents. You can easily compare documents, whereas with OpenText, it seems to be a challenge."
"The solution needs to improve the user interface."
"OpenText Extended ECM's user interface could be improved."
"We are looking for new, advanced UI features. Currently, the UI does not look great."
"A dashboard with information would be nice to see."
"Initially there can be stability issues due to unknown factors such as usage of the system, quantity of documents ingested, load during peak hours."
IBM FileNet is ranked 6th in Enterprise Content Management with 94 reviews while OpenText Extended ECM is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Content Management with 18 reviews. IBM FileNet is rated 8.2, while OpenText Extended ECM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM FileNet writes "A document management system that helps in document digitalization and workflow management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Extended ECM writes "Serves as a single source of support for the company but has scalability issues". IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, IBM ECM, Hyland OnBase and Alfresco, whereas OpenText Extended ECM is most compared with OpenText Documentum, SharePoint, Hyland OnBase, OpenText Content Manager and Alfresco. See our IBM FileNet vs. OpenText Extended ECM report.
See our list of best Enterprise Content Management vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Content Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
