Box Reviews

We use the solution to store and share our documents with people within and outside the organization.

We use Box as our file management system. We have numerous clients outside our organization with whom we regularly share documents. Box is appealing due to its user-friendly interface, reminiscent of the file structure on our Windows machines. Box is suitable for external collaboration.

The sharing feature, with its various permission settings, such as viewing or uploading, is convenient and helpful.

Box can assign tasks and collaborate. It's very efficient. It is better than SharePoint in this aspect. You can assign multiple tasks to different people on the same document, which works seamlessly.

One drawback is its permissions system, which has caused issues prompting our transition to SharePoint. The reporting functionality could be improved; currently, they utilize Excel for reporting purposes.

Making API calls is challenging because API calls are necessary when moving data from Box to SharePoint. Payment is required beyond a certain threshold of API calls per user, which has been quite difficult.

The support could be enhanced during the transition from Box to SharePoint. Box's pricing model is based on the number of API calls, with a cap applicable to all enterprises. This limitation has been an issue. 

There could be better reporting systems. For example, if something gets deleted, I need to go to the user activity to check who did it. Having a more efficient way to retrieve reports would be beneficial.

I have been using Box for the past two years.

I rate the solution’s stability a six out of ten.

Box's support provides delayed responses. There is an issue with the support system. When you create a ticket, sometimes it feels like you're answering the same questions repeatedly, even though the information is already in their system. This is frustrating, especially when resolving important matters like increasing API call limits.

Neutral

I've been working with SharePoint for a very long time.

The initial setup is decent.

The solution is expensive when it comes to API calls.

Sometimes people get confused. They asked a couple of users who would want to retrieve a file's older version because whatever they worked on, they lost it, and then their version control is handy. You have to ensure it's safe or that part of it complies. It is pre-approved, especially with clinical trial companies. Box has matched all those parameters. We use multifactor authentication to authenticate. We use a tool called Ping, which integrates smoothly with Box. In terms of authentication and security, Box is pretty sensitive.

Box is pretty good. We use DocuSign quite often, and it integrates well with DocuSign. Calling those APIs and getting different reports out of the Box are very limited. The market is under the control of Microsoft. So, when it comes to Microsoft products, Box has the best integration. It's pretty decent, except for the permissions issue, which means that if a user has permission at the top-level folder, they would have permission at the lower folders.

We are switching from Box to SharePoint. Box has some issues with permissions that we don't see in SharePoint. Certain things about Box and SharePoint are perfect. It depends on what your organization needs. SharePoint comes along with the Office 365 package. 

Box is a content management tool. Any company looking for a content management tool and who does not have things in place, like all of them are moving to the cloud. Box gives good competition to SharePoint. We need to store content, organize content, and share it externally and internally.
It depends on the company's requirements and the features they're looking for.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

We primarily use Box for sharing files within our group.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the set of security options that can be set when sharing files with a group. There is a lot of flexibility in that you can assign specific people read-only permissions. It can be done at the object level, or the folder level.

The application is very light in terms of uploading and downloading files.

With respect to the end-user experience, this is a very simple solution.

Better integration with other solutions is needed. Some use cases require the user to integrate with a document management system, or they may want to do some sort of workflow management. For example, if they want to maintain an integrational ERP system then different departments may have different requirements. The legal team will require a different set of controls than the HR department, and they want to have some sort of workflow as a process. I do these things manually because they are lacking in this product. If an ERP needs a file stored in Box then it should be able to download it directly.

I would like to see an indexing system because without knowing the filename, it is difficult to find what I am looking for amongst thousands of files. It would be nice to have some sort of metadata.

I have been using Box for five or six years.

My team has had no issues in terms of stability. My use case is really simple and straightforward.

With perhaps 200,000 users, we have had no issues with scalability. 

I have not been in contact with technical support.

We use several other tools for content management such as Documentum, Alfresco, and SharePoint. The choice of tool depends on the use case.

We have our own in-house team that deploys this product.

My advice to anybody who is considering this type of solution is to first formulate the use case. Box has certain limitations, but it is very plain and easy to use. If you need collaboration in terms of document management then it provides a simple interface that offers differing levels of granularity in terms of access control.

This is a good solution but it does not address all of the use cases for a content management system.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We have integrated Box into our platform. I use Box to store documents. Box has document management and e-signature features.

If we close a deal, the agreement will contain the details of what we will charge the customers. We can use Box to add an access control so that only those with access can view the commercial details. Others would not be able to see it. If I write a technical document about a new feature I want to create, I would not want it to get into the wrong hands. So I can provide controlled access to my team members using Box.

Box is a great product. We can provide controlled access to documents using the product. The features work fine. Box makes sense as an enterprise solution. The product has an in-built e-signature feature. If we want to sign a document, we can do it with the help of Box.

The price must be lowered.

I haven’t seen any issues with the product’s stability. It is very stable.

The tool is scalable.

The setup is very straightforward. The setup hardly takes 10 to 15 minutes. I use the cloud version of the tool.

We can refer to the documentation to do the setup in-house.

We use SharePoint for document management.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

I use Box to deploy virtual machines. My computer is Windows-based, and whenever I need to use Linux, I can download it there and do all my development work within it.

I like that Box makes it easy to deploy virtual machines.

It could be cheaper. 

I have been using Box for about three or four years.

Box is a stable solution. I have never had any issues. I was never disconnected for any reason, and it kept the connection even though I put my laptop in sleep mode.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give stability a ten.

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment process depends on your computer resources.

I implemented this solution. 

I have to pay for Box. It could be a little cheaper.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give the pricing a five.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Box a ten.

We use this solution for file storage.

It is really easy to load files to and from this solution. 

The search features and role permissions are not very user friendly. It only searches the first few pages of a document, which is quite a problem. In a future release, we'd like to have better permissions for folder level permissions at low levels. 

We have been using this solution for six months. 

This is a stable solution. 

We have not had any challenges with scalability. 

This solution is good for file storage but there are better options out there.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten. 

• File sharing with collaborators not on the same domain with offline access from multiple devices: I work on many projects that are multi-organizational, such as with customers, suppliers, or acquisitions.
• Being able to securely invite, share folders, do version control, and comment on files so quickly and easily without using unsecure large email attachments is a major productivity gain.

We have complex bids with tight deadlines. This involves partners/suppliers and key staff who can work offline, such as on the train, and then sync up their files later when they have WIFI coverage. This allows faster responses and stronger collaboration.

Tasks and comments could be easier to see, report, search, and manage.

I think it would benefit from a task full screen with list and sort functionality, then similarly a comments screen with list/filter/sort.

So, rather than looking at individual documents and drilling down to see where comments have been added, you could, for example, view all comments added to documents in a specific folder since a set date, such as last week.

This would be particularly useful on collaboration projects, as you could easily, on the first page, see all of the comments in that project folder. You could, based on you interest, click through to the document where there was a related comment.

We have used this solution for seven years.

There were no stability issues. It was consistently reliable.

There were no scalability issues. Many GBs are stored with 100 guests/clients/suppliers without any issues.

I hardly ever require support. It just works, which is one of the strongest things about it.

We evaluated SharePoint. It was cumbersome to manage, configure, and add new projects. Frankly, it is poor for adding external partners, for syncing, and using across multiple devices (iPhone, iPad, and laptops).

The setup was simple. The only area to learn, as it is different from Active Directory, is how security inherits down folders.

It is expensive per head, as you need the enterprise license to get full security and tools. So negotiate a discount!

We evaluated SharePoint and Dropbox.

Separate internal folders from externally shared ones and lock down the internal security so that staff can't invite non-domain users to internal folders; nice, clear demarcation.

We use the solution primarily for storage and very occasionally for collaboration.

I haven't found any valuable features.

I don't like the low level of role-based security it provides – it's very cumbersome, and the support is ordinary at times.

We've been using the product for 12 months.

I would say the solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

In my experience, support manages metrics instead of managing the solution. It seems they want to meet the SLAs without providing a solution.

Neutral

Box is relatively easy to set up.

On pricing, I would point out that the more you dig, or the deeper the level of tools, the more expensive it becomes. 

For basic file storage and a little collaboration, the product is fine. But for anything more integrated from a security point of view, it is not.

Besides Box, we also run SharePoint, and in terms of a holistic approach, I would say that SharePoint is probably the better option.

I would rate this product a six out of ten.

The ability to collaborate around data anywhere, anytime is the most powerful features of Box.

The word Box has become a verb at Morehouse College. The Students, Faculty and Staff are constantly pushing the limits of the Box.com platform by finding ever more creative ways to use it!

One of the greatest things is that they have not hit any limits.

Like all cloud platforms, there are always areas of improvement around sync to local devices. We are very EXCITED about the soon to be released Box Desktop for streamed file content. We are looking to beta the tool!

We have been on the Box.com platform for almost three years.

We initially tried a low tech approach to our data migration that failed, too much data to simply push over the internet; in comes SkySync to the rescue. We used SkySync to migrate files and permission from our Windows fileserver to the Box.com platform.

No.

No.

Box.com is one of our Premier Technical Partners!

They take ownership of any issues, and work them quickly to resolution.

We were complexity on premises, prior to our move to Box.com

The more you plan the better your migration will go, you must pay careful attention to the differences in permission structures.

Have not run detailed numbers yet, though we plan to. The reduction in risk alone on PII, HIPAA and FERPA will be huge factors in our ROI calculations.

I'm in Higher Ed, so we purchase through Internet2-Net+. I absolutely recommend going that route for Higher Ed customers.

Yes, we looked at Dropbox and OneDrive. Box.com had the best compliance matrix for the enterprise that we saw.

Love it!