FileCloud vs Microsoft Office SharePoint Server comparison

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

"Ability to collaborate with others in one location."

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

"The solution's most valuable features is its document management. It allows sharing with external users and integrates well with Office apps and Microsoft Flow."

"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the fact that it doesn't require coding. You just need to configure it. You don't need to code before getting something running. It makes it very fast."

"The support from Microsoft is very quick and they are very proactive."

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

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

"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 have more flexibility. The classic version had more flexibility, however, the modern version has many more limitations."

"The user interface needs improvement because there is a lot of stuff in there. I use five to eight navigation buttons. It should be more user-friendly. Frequently used menu items should be arranged in a proper way. That would be helpful."

"Workflows could be simplified."

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

"I would like to see the integration with Teams reinforced."

"This solution is not very stable. It is useful to arrange data but it's not the best for big data. Sometimes we have issues with our reports as a result."

"The areas around security, such as protection, need to be included."

"The GUI is outdated."

"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."

"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."

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

"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."