FileCloud vs Microsoft Office SharePoint Server comparison

"The granularity for the audit log in FileCloud is extremely valuable."

"The collaboration, the ability for multiple users to work on a single document."

"Document management and records management features are the most valuable."

"This solution has provided us with a collaborative workspace to allow everyone to work together and be on the same page."

"The most valuable feature is the "Alert Me", which provides the ability to set an alert when content is either added or changed and that the alerts can be either real-time or aggregated for the day or the week."

"The solution is scalable. You can do both horizontal and vertical scaling."

"It is a decent tool for collaboration, especially if you are already using other Office products."

"The solution's most valuable aspects are its collaboration capabilities, its communications site and the innovation within the product itself."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is the Communication Site."

"Currently, FileCloud's compatibility for Linux implementation is limited to only Ubuntu or Red Hat Enterprise Server."

"The solution needs to enable better sharing capabilities between users and external users. Several users also have problems with linking their emails to their Microsoft account."

"I would like to see more Agile techniques and seamless integration with other applications."

"Workflows could be simplified."

"I think these tools do a pretty good job. There is only one area of improvement. Maybe Microsoft can invest a little bit more into the ease at which integration can be done with other third party applications."

"The search feature needs improvement. I can never find the information I need when I use it."

"The GUI is outdated."

"The product could be improved by accommodating different technologies, particularly integration."

"Technical support could be improved. They are not fast enough, especially when we'll go deeper in the product itself. More complex issues make it very tough to find someone that can help you."

"Pricing plans may be flexible depending on volume usage and your corporate relationship with Microsoft."

"It can be expensive for on-premises deployments, especially when you have to support SQL Server as your backend database. That's where the cost comes into play. SQL Server has its own licensing, which Microsoft keeps on changing. Therefore, it can become costly. In the earlier versions of SharePoint, version 2007 or 2010, they had an express version where the SQL Server licensing was free. It wasn't like a full-blown SharePoint. It was only a slimmed-down version. It used to be whatever your hardware costs. You would install the free software and work with it, but you were very limited in what you could do in SharePoint. If you wanted the SharePoint Enterprise Server with all the bells and whistles, then you had to pay more to get the SQL Server license based on the number of users or servers. The subscription model is different for cloud deployments. Licensing is per user and per month. The cost also depends on the storage required. If you have a lot of sites or documents, then you need to expand it based on your needs."

"One of the reasons why we don't recommend the cloud version of SharePoint is the cost. With the on premise version, you pay for the license once. For the cloud version, there is a recurring fee. It is very expensive. They expect everyone to pay $20 or $30 per user per month."

"There are some aggressive discounts offered by Microsoft for organizations that are not for profit, which we are, and it makes it quite attractive to consider."