We performed a comparison between Box 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."Box is extremely stable, they have not been hacked or lost any data in the past seventeen years. I am very impressed with it."
"The interface is very good."
"The sharing feature, with its various permission settings, such as viewing or uploading, is convenient and helpful."
"It is a very user-friendly product."
"I like the ease of use."
"You can upload your bin, upload your files quickly, and download your files quickly. It provides a lot of other alternatives."
"File sharing with collaborators not on the same domain with offline access from multiple devices: I work on many projects that are multi-organizational, such as with customers, suppliers, or acquisitions."
"Box is very realistic when it comes to sharing capabilities."
"One of the most valuable features is FileNet's ability to capture things from the stack, from e-mail, to scanning of Excel and Word. FileNet can also convert many types of files to PDFs very easily."
"The usability is really good. Our business users are pleased with it. They seem to get what they are looking for, and it's very efficient."
"The product has helped with compliance and governance issues. There are some archiving policies which a financial organization has to keep. Our organization can keep up with them because of the IBM product."
"Centralized our business documents."
"There aren't very many ECM solutions that scale properly, both up and out. We have customers who hold billions of documents. There aren't very many that can scale that far, and that can also scale out so that they can handle lots of users, lots of documents, and that understand how to handle external users. FileNet is one that can."
"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."
"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."
"Streamlined our business processes."
"They could integrate better with other platforms."
"One thing that Box would benefit from is a records management component."
"The upload speed needs improvement."
"The UI should be faster. Sometimes it lags when switching between documents."
"I would love to see the ability to invite collaborators extended to a file level, not just the folder level."
"Working on documents in real-time is sometimes faulty and could be improved."
"If there was a plugin that added some sort of toolbar in Office, that would be great."
"If you want to delete something in Box, you have to do it manually, one by one. That was my recent experience. They might have a bulk delete, but I could not find that option. If you want to delete something, you have to go to each and every file and delete it."
"Sometimes, there can be issues with the database connections. FileNet has too many outages because things are broken in the database."
"A little better control into the ACLs of FileNet and databases."
"It could be simpler to use, considering multiple use cases."
"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."
"For end-users there is a lack of administrative features. The interface of basic FileNet is not very good."
"We know that they're looking at documents, but we don't know what documents they're actually going and finding the most, or where the bottlenecks might be. It would be nice if there was some interconnectivity back into Bluemix to say, "Ok, you've got a workflow problem here." That would be a neat feature moving forward because we've got a lot of users that would just say, "The system is not working." We had a few threads would get hung up because they were just constantly banging on these few documents. If that were the case, if we knew that ahead of time, then we could fix that, change the search sequences to make it more efficient. But we were blind to that until the users said it's not working."
"IBM has a lot of documentation but the kind of information in a lot of the documents can be confusing to our clients. It would be easier if they used video tutorials. Right now, the information is too hard to understand, and there is a lot of it. If they used videos I think FinalNet would be easy to use for an end-user."
"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."
Box is ranked 4th in Enterprise Content Management with 38 reviews while IBM FileNet is ranked 6th in Enterprise Content Management with 94 reviews. Box is rated 8.4, while IBM FileNet is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Box writes "Used for data storage and data collaboration, but its data security could be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM FileNet writes "A document management system that helps in document digitalization and workflow management". Box is most compared with SharePoint, Microsoft OneDrive, Citrix ShareFile, Office 365 and Dropbox, whereas IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM, IBM ECM and Newgen OmniDocs. See our Box 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.
