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 ability to tag data, as it seems to be indexed well. It is a good space to manage data, keep track of it, and organize it."
"There are a lot of valuable features, but the biggest advantage is that this system is stable; it's always online, it always works... once it's configured and running, we don't need to touch it and constantly make changes to it. It's a low-maintenance platform."
"If we run into problems, which is inevitable (and we run into problems all the time), we get quick responses and good solutions back from the technical support."
"The beauty is the response time. It is very good nowadays within the platform."
"It has a straightforward approach to the install."
"It has the ability to mix document management and process automation."
"Streamlined our business processes."
"We shred all our paper and no longer need the cabinet space. We used to have about six to 12 inches of cabinet space per customer, which is now gone."
"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."
"We can configure the solution with any industry's products per customer requirements."
"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."
"An SAP user can store documents directly into OpenText without a connector."
"Most of our customers are very fond of the upgraded smart user interface."
"Simplicity to roll out, features available, customization options."
"Retention is useful. I have been pleased with the search functionality and the extensibility for tying it into integrations with other systems and building workflows on top of it."
"The integration of a document management platform with many other applications, e.g. SAP, SuccessFactors, Salesforce, SharePoint, etc."
"If I had a concern, it would be that we are sometimes not getting to the root cause of the issues from a technical standpoint as quickly as we should. For the most part, it's good. However, when things get a bit dicey with more involved issues, we have had some delays in getting feedback. If I had a concern, it's around the technical support and their responses in regards to things like root cause analysis."
"We do have some individuals that do need to come up to speed on it technically, and the only onsite training for Case Manager is in Europe, there is not a lot of US-based training. So they have to do all their training online rather than being able to go and have a good bootcamp-style training somewhere nearby."
"A little better control into the ACLs of FileNet and databases."
"What I would like to see is more integration."
"Needs a better administration tool."
"I think some of the technical pieces, when implementing it ourselves, were something of a roadblock until we discovered the Concierge. Those are some things they have to work on."
"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."
"One of the things I know is a bit of a challenge for them - because I know that it lives on top of FileNet, so it's not necessarily living on top of a relational database, per se - is that we also are using it as our system of record for our language management and our language definitions. I know that that was a little bit of a challenge, just because of the underlying architecture."
"Initially there can be stability issues due to unknown factors such as usage of the system, quantity of documents ingested, load during peak hours."
"User interface needs improvement (at least in the version we are using, desktop client)."
"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."
"The architecture needs improvement, as it's complex."
"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."
"I have not used it enough to start running into issues. Some of my technical guys could name a couple of things, but in terms of support, we did have challenges getting good responses from them."
"OpenText Extended ECM's user interface could be improved."
"A dashboard with information would be nice to see."
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.
