We performed a comparison between Hyland OnBase and IBM FileNet 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 solution is very developed and we are not taking full advantage of its functionalities."
"We found the setup process to be okay since they do offer a troubleshooting guide."
"OnBase is a remarkable tool. It is a well-done product. Hyland has a lot of experience in building it and looking for new things for clients in terms of functionalities. It has amazing stability, and it can grow horizontally and vertically. It is built for growth. Their technical support is also quite good and available throughout the year."
"I like the cloud and its integrability."
"The most valuable features are that it's very secure and provides audit trails for our documents."
"The retention module is one of the most valuable features. Whatever we scan onto the system can be identified and we are notified when the records are due to be disposed."
"It is a user-friendly system and easy to manage for anyone with basic knowledge."
"We probably would not have seen adoption so strongly without it."
"The most valuable features of IBM File Manager are workflow, content, and process capabilities."
"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."
"The most valuable features for us are Wex (Watson) for search, Datacap for OCR/ICR, and Automation Anywhere for RPA."
"We use IBM Datacap's capabilities to capture data and then we use FileNet's capabilities for filing, to create an archive of documents... We [also] use FileNet's ability to expose information via APIs and interoperate with other systems."
"It allows for multiple people to access content simultaneously."
"The most valuable features are the interconnectivity and the collaboration. No longer do I have to wonder what system I need to go to for the data I need. I know it's in FileNet."
"For user experience, they would have to do more with the interface. It is not easy to work with and is a little messy. It is getting better, but it is not yet good enough. Other products are comparatively doing better in terms of the user interface. I have been hearing about Box, which is very easy to use and learn for the users. OnBase has to work on this aspect. It should have BPM capabilities. We compete with tools that provide the BPM feature and support those standards. They can do better in terms of the pricing model. It is a really expensive tool in Latin America. They should have different prices for different regions."
"The look and feel could be better. The integration with the user could be better. It could also be more user-friendly."
"We are struggling with duplicates and would like to have OCR functionality when using this solution."
"The dashboards do have some room for improvement as compared to the other vendors which are there in the market."
"We need to troubleshoot why our reports didn't get downloaded in a day. There is a workflow feature which powerful but also complicated."
"An area for improvement would be the training - getting our people up to speed on how to use it required more training than we expected due to the complexity of the solution."
"I would like to have more governance features with more supervisory layers."
"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."
"Programmers have to translate user needs into IBM FileNet, which causes misinterpretations."
"Currently, our primary ERP system is SAP S/4HANA. Despite this, we have encountered difficulties integrating the solution with it, which remains an unresolved challenge for our team."
"I would like to see the dashboard be a little bit more robust and a little more user-friendly"
"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 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."
"There is room for improvement in the file management. It's very complex."
Hyland OnBase is ranked 8th in Enterprise Content Management with 8 reviews while IBM FileNet is ranked 5th in Enterprise Content Management with 94 reviews. Hyland OnBase is rated 8.0, while IBM FileNet is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Hyland OnBase writes "Stable content and workflow management solution with a valuable retention module". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM FileNet writes "A document management system that helps in document digitalization and workflow management". Hyland OnBase is most compared with Alfresco, SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM and Hyland Perceptive Content, whereas IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM, IBM ECM and Box. See our Hyland OnBase vs. IBM FileNet 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.
