We performed a comparison between BIC Platform and Hyland OnBase based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Apache, Pega and others in Business Process Management (BPM)."The product is easy to use."
"This is low-cost and very user friendly. A variety of models are available depending on the needs of the customer."
"While this is a new product it has a mature feel from being built by a company with many years in the business."
"The central dictionary is a valuable feature."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable features are that it's very secure and provides audit trails for our documents."
"I like the cloud and its integrability."
"The product needs improvement regarding the confidentiality of the domain information for the key administrator."
"The solution could improve its connectivity to other systems."
"As the product is very new, some minor features are still missing, but everything is there to handle day-to-day process modeling."
"There's an issue with the current manual that they're working on."
"We need to troubleshoot why our reports didn't get downloaded in a day. There is a workflow feature which powerful but also complicated."
"We are struggling with duplicates and would like to have OCR functionality when using this solution."
"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 dashboards do have some room for improvement as compared to the other vendors which are there in the market."
"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."
"The look and feel could be better. The integration with the user could be better. It could also be more user-friendly."
BIC Platform is ranked 28th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 4 reviews while Hyland OnBase is ranked 25th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 8 reviews. BIC Platform is rated 8.2, while Hyland OnBase is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of BIC Platform writes "Provides good stability, but they should add a feature for enterprise architecture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Hyland OnBase writes "Stable content and workflow management solution with a valuable retention module". BIC Platform is most compared with SAP Signavio Process Manager, ARIS BPA, Visio, Camunda and ADONIS, whereas Hyland OnBase is most compared with Alfresco, SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM and IBM FileNet.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) 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.
