We performed a comparison between IBM FileNet and Oracle Content Management 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 beauty is the response time. It is very good nowadays within the platform."
"It is really usable. There is a lot of support for it. You have the online components to trawl through the storage. I have a lot of fun with it."
"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."
"It has increased our productivity."
"The natural interpolatability with IBM Datacap, that is a key component of our solution, as well as with BPM, and WebSphere Portal. That's why we prefer FileNet instead of some other, less world-class solution."
"The product is very stable."
"We have made our service routes more efficient, as far as moving work through the system and being able to react to customer situations and needs better by improving things, such as, address and beneficiary changes. I know that we have definitely made improvements in the process."
"The standout feature for us is undoubtedly the Google-like search functionality, which allows us to search for documents within the system effortlessly. Instead of just querying the document database, this feature retrieves all relevant documents, akin to searching on the internet. It is very easy to use."
"It's a comprehensive solution for managing documents within our organization's management framework."
"I'd like to see more cognitive. That's obviously where all of our world is going. I think if we can have more of those types of features and functions as a core, out of the box, that would be very helpful for us and our space."
"There is some confusion with FileNet workflow. It's not really going into the next level. They are probably replacing it with BPM's workflow. So there's an issue of clarity, the vision for going forward."
"In terms of functionality, what customers might be looking for is a little more in terms of native-records retention. Records Management is an add-on product. If there were just a little more of that built into the core functionality, that would be helpful."
"I would rate the technical support as medium. I do not like the login process. It is not great."
"It may be a little complex to implement and take some effort."
"The new user interface is not easy to set up, so some improvements along these lines would be good."
"Needs a better administration tool."
"I would like to have an offline DR deployment. If that is doable, then it would be a big win."
"Oracle Content Management poses complexities in initial implementation and configuration."
IBM FileNet is ranked 6th in Enterprise Content Management with 94 reviews while Oracle Content Management is ranked 11th in Enterprise Content Management with 2 reviews. IBM FileNet is rated 8.2, while Oracle Content Management is rated 9.0. 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 Oracle Content Management writes "Streamlines document management and enhances collaboration through its robust features and intuitive interface". IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM, IBM ECM and Alfresco, whereas Oracle Content Management is most compared with Oracle WebCenter, SharePoint, Adobe Experience Manager, Microsoft OneDrive and Alfresco. See our IBM FileNet vs. Oracle Content Management 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.
