We performed a comparison between IBM OpenPages and RSA Archer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two GRC solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The content, reporting, and workflow features stand out as the most valuable aspects."
"The product’s interface is very intuitive."
"The ability to keep a record of internal incidents in the company, and also the monitoring of Key Indicators."
"The most valuable part of the product is the ease-of-use and the opportunity to create custom security applications easily."
"From my perspective, because I've always done it as a consultant, I do like the way it is configured. They've gone into changing the application builder interface, so it is even easier. When you're working with users, it is really easy to show them how to do things quickly and how to configure, change, and design stuff quickly."
"Archer has simplified our security audits. It's made it easier to raise and trigger questionnaires to customers."
"Solution is scalable."
"The integrated data model of a one-to-many/many-to-one relationship is quite useful."
"The most valuable features are the advanced workflow and the dashboards. This tool can present data wonderfully to management, and it is easy for them to manage the risk plans."
"The product is very flexible."
"The part I liked about Archer was the risk assessment for deficiencies and being able to use it there."
"The solution must allow customization in reporting."
"I believe there's room for improvement in establishing connections with external information."
"IBM OpenPages needs improvement in its UI. Currently, it is difficult to see the relationships (associations/parents) between all items unless you click on the item itself."
"It would be nice if RSA Archer featured more customization. When customers are updating, they should be notified whether certain updates are optional. The install screen should not proceed to the next page unless we make some selections about which updates we want to install."
"The technology's a little outdated."
"The design and advanced workflow need to be improved."
"The product is expensive."
"There is no inbuilt alert in Archer to let us know that a data feed has failed or did not run for different reasons. So, we don't even get to know that a feed has not run until somebody reports it to us. This has been a problem all the time. Data feeds have always been a big headache for us because there is no feature to let us know if a feed has not run or has failed. If Archer had a feature to send us an email notification when a feed has failed, it would've been very helpful. This is the reason why our users are slowly moving away to another platform. Some of the modules that I have been managing are being moved to ServiceNow. Next year, a lot of our modules will be moved from RSA Archer to ServiceNow, and the data feed issue has been one of the main reasons."
"I would like to see real-time data, from vulnerabilities, and threats."
"There should be a way to export and get data from the system in PDF or PowerPoint presentation format. This would be a great addition."
"GUI could be improved."
IBM OpenPages is ranked 8th in GRC with 5 reviews while RSA Archer is ranked 1st in GRC with 38 reviews. IBM OpenPages is rated 6.6, while RSA Archer is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM OpenPages writes "Enables us to manage global workflow and users' relationships with the links". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA Archer writes "A rich application with good workflow, but search feature needs improvement". IBM OpenPages is most compared with MetricStream, OneTrust GRC, SAP BusinessObjects GRC, AuditBoard and SAS Enterprise GRC, whereas RSA Archer is most compared with OneTrust GRC, MetricStream, Workiva Wdesk, AuditBoard and Microsoft Purview Communication Compliance. See our IBM OpenPages vs. RSA Archer report.
See our list of best GRC vendors and best IT Governance vendors.
We monitor all GRC 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.