We performed a comparison between Kiteworks and Thru based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Progress Software, BMC, IBM and others in Managed File Transfer (MFT)."The most valuable feature is the ability to send a large file of 30 GB in size and more. In Outlook and other email applications, you cannot send files that are larger than 20 MB. But with Kiteworks, 30 GB is transferable by default and, with the proper approval, a file of up to 100 GB can be sent. It makes file transfer very easy and smooth."
"The solution removes the limitations with file attachment size that is found with regular email."
"I like Kiteworks or Accellion because it's continuously upgraded. I also know that it probably works with a lot of clients."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to allow end-users to manage their own information and data with minimal administration. That's the best feature from my perspective."
"The solution can be used remotely; it's easy to upload and share files."
"The benefits that Kiteworks has provided to its customers in terms of data sovereignty."
"The best part of this solution is that we can generate multiple reports about how the data is transferred and about user information or IP."
"We could see whether the customer with whom we shared a file had downloaded it, which was not available with GitHub."
"The stability of Thru is very good."
"There is no offboarding process for end-users in Kiteworks. It's a manual process. There is no automated syncing with LDAP and checking to see if the account is still active. It's a manual process to get people out of here, which isn't the best way."
"In my experience, their technical support can be a little slow."
"We have experienced a few hiccups and bugs when using the admin console and from a user perspective."
"Kiteworks could benefit from enhancing the proposal knowledge base section, specifically regarding the type of work involved. Currently, the knowledge base seems insufficiently dedicated to this topic, making it challenging for new users to access the relevant administrative law. Improving the visual aids and providing clearer explanations could alleviate this issue."
"It could be more stable. In the next release, it would be better if it was more stable with improved performance."
"It would be nice if Kiteworks could provide a free version of the platform so that it could be used for a certain number of file transfers. We could be charged a fee if we exceeded the number of allotted file transfers."
"There are always issues when there are bugs or upgrades. The challenge with upgrading is getting more storage from the customer. Every time we have a new version, it requires additional storage. This means that the customer would need to procure more storage for their server, which they don't like because it means additional cost to them. So, I think my request would be that the version upgrades don't require any significant storage requirement."
"File location could be improved."
"The initial setup of Thru needed an engineer to be involved."
Kiteworks is ranked 6th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 12 reviews while Thru is ranked 19th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 1 review. Kiteworks is rated 8.8, while Thru is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kiteworks writes "A unified, secure way to share sensitive content, with no file size limitations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Thru writes "Scalable, reliable, and excellent support". Kiteworks is most compared with Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct, MOVEit, Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, SharePoint and Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense, whereas Thru is most compared with .
See our list of best Managed File Transfer (MFT) vendors.
We monitor all Managed File Transfer (MFT) 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.
