It's very scalable. We can have multiple collaboration sites within the same environment, and it's easy to add more users as needed.

We have around 115 users.

Its scalability is very good. We can add as many users as we want. It is designed for high scalability.

We have about 12 employees. We have two HR people, two marketing people, one chief product officer, the CEO, and the head of technology. So, it is a mixture of different departments. It is not that expensive. Right now, it is only $5 per user per month. So, we are definitely going to grow.

We have 100 SharePoint users in our organization. We encountered challenges with the default storage limitations, which initially provided one terabyte. However, we have found a solution by learning how to extract additional storage, expanding it up to five terabytes for certain customers. This enhancement is facilitated through an add-on extra storage feature, allowing users to surpass the initial limitations and manage storage more effectively. Users must understand that each line typically grants ten gigabytes, and when deleted, this allocated storage decreases. Adding extra storage ensures scalability and enables users to accommodate increased data requirements efficiently.

I give SharePoint's scalability a ten out of ten.

The tool is scalable to any extent. We have to pay for it. We have around 20,000 users.

Based on things I've heard, I'd rate it a six out of ten. Just from the feedback I've had from developers working with SharePoint Designer, they do feel that there are some limitations. For SharePoint, most of our clients are medium-sized organizations.

I never had an issue with the tool’s scalability. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We have 120 users.

If properly deployed, the solution is very scalable. It’s really easy to have many servers in a farm solution, and many farms in an enterprise solution.

We are on two farms so it is not a truly global solution which is frustrating when trying to communicate about global programs and events. Those in the Europe farm cannot follow the majority of our content in the North American farm.

The scalability of SharePoint Online is good.

The tool is scalable. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We have eight users in our organization.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

The solution is scalable. Around 1,000 users are using this solution.

It has not reached it’s scalability envelope yet.

SharePoint is not as scalable, particularly when implementing larger projects. It's good for small-scale implementation.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

I did not have any scalability issues.

SharePoint is easy and has new features now. Scalability with SharePoint is good and easy for us at work. To maintain the product, we do not need a large amount of professionals, we currently have three professionals to administer the platform.

The solution has a good ability to scale up in terms of number of documents and number of users.

I have never seen it hit a wall in terms of supporting our programs, and I have been the senior contractor program and project manager overseeing two large Health IT projects, both with more than 100 team members and as many as 11,000 assigned tasks.

SharePoint 2013 is very scalable. The problem is IT departments that don't understand the solution start in the wrong direction, which can lead to reinstalls and other interruptions because of the initial configuration. Again, following best practices and building a good solid foundation is how you avoid complications later with growth and other scalability issues.

I've never encountered any scalability issues. In the past, I’ve implemented it in with 3TB of information, without any problems.

I was never involved in planning for scalability, and have never been aware of any scalability issues in any of the places where I've used the product.

I did experience some scalability issues; this could be more because of trying to use SharePoint as a BI tool, which it is not designed for.

My organization is an enterprise business, and half of my organization is using SharePoint.

SharePoint is extremely scalable but requires planning ahead of time.

You must answer some questions about your environment in order to determine the number of servers and also as to what SharePoint function(s) they will serve for meeting the demands of your organization.

We did not have any scalability issues. It is as easy as adding new licenses for new users.

I have not encountered any scalability issues, but that requires the same conditions that ensure stability.

Scalability is one of the great strengths of the product, in that it scales very well. As an added benefit, due to the ease of administration, a lead in a business unit can take over such responsibilities.

I have not yet encountered any scalability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues, but our installation only supports a few thousand people.

Frankly, I would make a case for many organizations to go with the SaaS-based option. I investigated the security around Office 365 in the past and it was HIPAA and PSI compliant. When organizations host these types of solutions instead of leveraging commodity hardware and expertise in a SAAS environment, that is where the issues of stability and scalability come up.

Well, that's one of the strengths because it not just using soap web services where it sends some XML file to different machines, but it's using WCF, which is a version of a web service, web services being used if you have a different machine where you want to call a function. The type of machines we are using now are invented by Alan Turing, a guy from the hacking Enigma code and Robert Dennard, who invented RAM. These types of machines do not allow you to, all functions on the remote machine. If you want to do that, you have to send a hint which is what web services does.

Scalability is great, but again huge data will be a little cumbersome to manage.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

I have encountered scalability issues, but only due to a physical server. With virtual server architecture, this can be resolved easily.

I am not at the experience level to notice such an issue.

We did have issues with scalability. Performance isn’t so good if too many people use it.

Scalability issue are related to the previous question regarding stability.

N/A

It's fairly easy to scale. You can just add front-ends to it. Just a little installation and it's done. It's very easy to expand.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

We have not encountered any scalability issues. The contract between IBM and the organisation covers all the needs we have.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability. SharePoint actually scales really well as you’re able to add roles and servers to your heart’s content. Office 365 also has a number of clever resource throttling capabilities, which allows administrators to prioritize certain areas over others.

No issues encountered.

SharePoint is tied to Microsoft's CAL pricing model so depending on your agreement, can be in line or balloon the cost. This is primarily for an on-site solution. If you're using the cloud solution, then it's still on a per user basis, but may/may not be a better fit. Our company didn't have any issues with scaling within the existing software version, however, if we were to upgrade to newer version, it would require a sizable investment.

This solution is extremely scalable. It is a highly performance-optimized web service that you just have to install correctly and then add the machine to the farm with the proper permissions. That is one of the biggest strengths of SharePoint.

Scalability is not a problem as long as you can virtualize the SharePoint server farm. Hardware speed acceleration could overcome the software limitation. In my case, one front-end server served 700 users.

There were no scalability issues but then again, we are only about 30 people who are using it constantly.

As per Microsoft support, the issue should be fixed in the next releases. But until now, the same problem is occurring.

When you set it up as a single server, you will quickly outgrow it. If deployed correctly SharePoint scales very well with the ability to provision multiple web front ends, dedicated reporting servers and SQL clusters. This all helps to remove a single point of failure.

There were no scalability issues as such. However, the 500 items limit in views can be limiting in some instances.

We did not have any scalability issues. However, we have deployed a very simple system, with no bespoke tooling or plugins. We have, as yet, not had to scale the solution beyond adding more RAM or disc to either the database or application server.

I have not encountered any scalability issues. It’s highly robust, and can be scaled further as the organization’s requirements increase.

We did not have any scalability problems.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I didn't encounter any issues with scalability. What I do know is that, when this is required, you will need the right skilled IT specialist to make the change. Often the right skilled specialists are not easy to find.

We did not have any issues with scalability.

I have not encountered any scalability issues. SharePoint is very scalable, provided that you have the resources to ensure its smooth operation.

For example, enabling Power BI is almost as easy as subscribing to the SaaS and flicking a switch. Similarly, other third-party vendor plugins are as easy as installing them and making the webpages and web parts available to the users. However, making sure that the platform itself is configured correctly and deploying the plugins correctly, is often where some things can fail. SharePoint itself scales well, it's just ensuring that all the additional resources are working cohesively.

I have not encountered any issues with scalability.

Since scale is not challenging me right now, I haven't really paid attention to its scalability. We have 12 users on it. Their roles are primarily deployment, resource management, and fulfilling the technical mandates people are working on.

We have not had scalability issues in SharePoint 2010 and onwards.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

At the end of the day, I would say we have not encountered any scalability issues. We have added more sites and continue to add them as people realize the power and effectiveness of the product. There are times, though relatively infrequent, where it seems to bog down a little but it does not have a major impact on productivity.

There are some performance issues with respect to the amount of data that has to be stored.

We have had no issues with scalability, but you must buy additional storage if you use the given amount within your tenant (enterprise plans: 1 TB + .5 GB per subscribed user).

There were scalability issues with SP 2013, but MS made some improvements in SP 2016.

The product is designed for scalability, except for the List View Threshold limitation.

Once the guidelines and the hardware requirements are fulfilled, the performance result is in line with expectations. Beyond that, SharePoint 2013 has been created with scalability in mind, with all services deployable on an on-demand basis, independently, even on a dedicated machine. In addition, is pretty easy to scale services when you require more performance.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Scalability is OK.

SharePoint is extremely scalable but requires planning ahead of time. You must answer some questions about your environment to determine how many servers and what SharePoint function(s) they will serve to meet the demands of your organization.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.`

Scalability was not an issue for us at the time of deployment. Capacity planning and resource management was done well. However, scalability issues with the current version is done much better than in previous versions

I have no complaints about the scalability of SharePoint.

We have had scalability issues. I cannot speak about horizontal scalability, but the mapping of environments (Dev, QA, Production) is difficult. There's no logical segmentation that allows the creation of several environments to facilitate development and testing tasks. Additional instances of SharePoint are necessary.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.

No issues were experienced in regards to the scalability.

It's scalable because you can add more and more SharePoint's installations and maybe you can divide the content and everything, so it's scalable.

I have not faced scalability issues.

We have not yet encountered any scalability issues. SharePoint 2013 is reportedly scalable. As long as the solution has been properly configured, our organization should not experience any foreseeable issues.

The new MinRole feature does not support a small environment. It will be solved with new Feature Pack 1 this year.

Actually, the scaling is very simple. One of my customers needs their portal in three languages (English, Arabic and Urdu). SharePoint doesn’t have the Urdu language package, hence we had to work hard for it.

The product is scalable.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability, although our installation is a small one and doesn't have that problem.

We did not have any scalability problems.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

We didn’t have any scalability issues.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

The scalability is not high. It's medium.

So far, we have not had any issues with scalability. We are investigating upgrading to the Enterprise edition in the future, so this may change.

We did not have scalability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues so far.

There are some limitations on storage.