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."The collaboration of the solution is good."
"We've never had a penetration. We've never had a security issue that their support didn't solve. We love their audit trail. We can know exactly when a collaborator opens. We love how you can define a collaborator."
"Box is extremely stable, they have not been hacked or lost any data in the past seventeen years. I am very impressed with it."
"Office Integration. The full integration into the Microsoft Office products is just perfect."
"It is a very user-friendly product."
"The system's performance is impressive, and file sharing is notably straightforward."
"File sharing, authorization on the back, its ease of use and reliable uptime performance are valuable features of this solution."
"I like the ease of use."
"Centralized our business documents."
"It saves our customers time by 30 to 40 percent by eliminating the time to process paper."
"The most critical benefit has been ease of use. It speeds along our development helping us go to market a lot sooner."
"The product is robust and can process a lot of documents for enterprise content management."
"The API's extensibility and new user interface are its most valuable features."
"The most valuable features of IBM File Manager are workflow, content, and process capabilities."
"Everybody ties into Active Directory and things like that, but on top of that are the extra layers of security for encryption, so they can meet standards required by PCI and by HIPAA: encryption at rest, encryption in flight, encryption in the database, all together. There are really only three products on the market that know how to do that, and FileNet is one of them."
"The most valuable features are the interconnectivity and the collaboration. No longer do I have to wonder what system I need to go to for the data I need. I know it's in FileNet."
"The integration with other products should be improved."
"The UI should be faster. Sometimes it lags when switching between documents."
"Tasks and comments could be easier to see, report, search, and manage."
"Working on documents in real-time is sometimes faulty and could be improved."
"I find their API to be quite complex and it could be more straightforward."
"Improvements in speed - Box's high level of security impacts performance, especially when compared with other similar services."
"Like all cloud platforms, there are always areas of improvement around sync to local devices."
"Maturity of the enterprise security around user management."
"One of the things I know is a bit of a challenge for them - because I know that it lives on top of FileNet, so it's not necessarily living on top of a relational database, per se - is that we also are using it as our system of record for our language management and our language definitions. I know that that was a little bit of a challenge, just because of the underlying architecture."
"The product is expensive."
"I would like to see in FileNet integrated with Watson, which can read something and send it without any human contact or interaction."
"It could be simpler to use, considering multiple use cases."
"It is stable as long as you create the right environment. We have had issues at times, but just because of configuration issues."
"For end-users there is a lack of administrative features. The interface of basic FileNet is not very good."
"The analytics in FileNet are too complicated and they consume too much infrastructure, memory, and CPU. They're too expensive to work with."
"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."
Box is ranked 4th in Enterprise Content Management with 37 reviews while IBM FileNet is ranked 5th 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 OpenText Content Manager. 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.
