FileCloud vs Microsoft Office SharePoint Server comparison

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

"The solution is pretty easy to use for the most part."

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

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

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

"Ability to collaborate with others in one location."

"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 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."

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

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

"Many of our customers would like to see an OCR feature, so it would be very good to have this in a future release."

"The ability to preview files in different formats should be expanded to include formats such as embedded postscript (EPS), AutoCAD, and Adobe Acrobat PDF."

"The GUI is outdated."

"The solution needs to be more collaborative. I believe they are just coming up with the themes for this right now."

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

"The product is behind in development and lacks some features."

"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."

"Workflows could be simplified."

"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."

"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."