We performed a comparison between IBM FileNet and Oracle Content Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, OpenText, Box and others in Enterprise Content Management."The key way that this product has improved the way that that our business functions is by its stability. Its ability to remain up despite other pressures, its consistency, and lack of downtime are really the greatest things that it brings."
"The most useful feature is its persistent storage. Also, the full-text search and attribute searching are valuable."
"Centralized our business documents."
"The application, in terms of durability, has been able to withstand the usage, given that it was installed in 2003 and it's still working."
"The most valuable feature is access control."
"If we run into problems, which is inevitable (and we run into problems all the time), we get quick responses and good solutions back from the technical support."
"The beauty is the response time. It is very good nowadays within the platform."
"The ability to manage the content well."
"It's a comprehensive solution for managing documents within our organization's management framework."
"The usability is fair. It could be a bit better. It could be better designed. They could put more effort into the user experience and do a better job of integrating other components, like Datacap, to be a bit more seamless."
"I would like to see expanded search features, like content search."
"We brought DocuSign into our company's solution three years before. At that time there was no direct integration. We would like to pull documents out from FileNet, push them to DocuSign and, when done, retrieve them and store them back in FileNet. We wrote our own custom solution for that. It would be nice if there was some tool we could have used to do that."
"Our client feels FileNet does not provide them with content searchability. They feel it's cumbersome. They're only using Metadata. If the Metadata is not well-populated, it becomes a problem to retrieve a document."
"I would rate the technical support as medium. I do not like the login process. It is not great."
"The initial setup is complex. It is complex because there are several pieces of software that have to be installed in the right order to make it work alright."
"It was complex. There were a lot of dependencies depending on the product. It had to be compatible with the Windows matching."
"A little better control into the ACLs of FileNet and databases."
"Oracle Content Management poses complexities in initial implementation and configuration."
IBM FileNet is ranked 5th in Enterprise Content Management with 94 reviews while Oracle Content Management is ranked 11th in Enterprise Content Management with 2 reviews. IBM FileNet is rated 8.2, while Oracle Content Management is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of IBM FileNet writes "A document management system that helps in document digitalization and workflow management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Content Management writes "Streamlines document management and enhances collaboration through its robust features and intuitive interface". IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM, IBM ECM and Alfresco, whereas Oracle Content Management is most compared with Oracle WebCenter, SharePoint, Adobe Experience Manager, Microsoft OneDrive and Alfresco.
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.
