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 most valuable feature for me is the possibility to share and to collaborate, the possibility to connect FileNet with many other IBM products as well. It helps avoid the possibility of creating "island applications." We have an ecosystem where everything can be interconnected."
"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."
"It has improved my organization by how we release documents, claims, and policies."
"Centralized our business documents."
"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."
"It improves the time when providing customer service to our constituents."
"FileNet has the capabilities to meet compliance and regulatory requirements. It is very secure."
"I would say the workflow is pretty good. Also, the flexibility of being able to create custom objects with a lot of domain-specific attributes that we follow."
"It's a comprehensive solution for managing documents within our organization's management framework."
"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."
"It may be a little complex to implement and take some effort."
"The product is expensive."
"It needs better collaboration between the IBM teams on the FileNet and CCM sides."
"I would say the installation process can be very complicated, and you need to to have an experience resource."
"It was complex. There were a lot of dependencies depending on the product. It had to be compatible with the Windows matching."
"There is room for improvement in the scanning solution, Datacap. It's improving all the time. But since it's more an end-user software, the end-users are constantly improving their processes, and I believe that sometimes we're not catching up with their requirements."
"The analytics in FileNet are too complicated and they consume too much infrastructure, memory, and CPU. They're too expensive to work with."
"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.
