We performed a comparison between Hyland OnBase and IBM FileNet based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Content Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."OnBase is a remarkable tool. It is a well-done product. Hyland has a lot of experience in building it and looking for new things for clients in terms of functionalities. It has amazing stability, and it can grow horizontally and vertically. It is built for growth. Their technical support is also quite good and available throughout the year."
"We found the setup process to be okay since they do offer a troubleshooting guide."
"I like the cloud and its integrability."
"The most valuable features are that it's very secure and provides audit trails for our documents."
"The retention module is one of the most valuable features. Whatever we scan onto the system can be identified and we are notified when the records are due to be disposed."
"The solution is very developed and we are not taking full advantage of its functionalities."
"It has the ability to mix document management and process automation."
"Stability is really good. We fairly recently upgraded a version of it and have not been having any problems. The resources seem to be really good with this version; it is a little easier to troubleshoot issues."
"It is a faster, robust solution. The platform compatibility is very good."
"It improves the time when providing customer service to our constituents."
"It is a user-friendly system and easy to manage for anyone with basic knowledge."
"Users are able to create their own content, and they can manage their own sets of tasks, to work at their own pace and get their jobs done."
"The document collaboration is very good. There is something called Pink Note where departments can collaborate within the document. It has a built-in viewer to see any type of document."
"The most valuable features are the interconnectivity and the collaboration. No longer do I have to wonder what system I need to go to for the data I need. I know it's in FileNet."
"An area for improvement would be the training - getting our people up to speed on how to use it required more training than we expected due to the complexity of the solution."
"The look and feel could be better. The integration with the user could be better. It could also be more user-friendly."
"We need to troubleshoot why our reports didn't get downloaded in a day. There is a workflow feature which powerful but also complicated."
"For user experience, they would have to do more with the interface. It is not easy to work with and is a little messy. It is getting better, but it is not yet good enough. Other products are comparatively doing better in terms of the user interface. I have been hearing about Box, which is very easy to use and learn for the users. OnBase has to work on this aspect. It should have BPM capabilities. We compete with tools that provide the BPM feature and support those standards. They can do better in terms of the pricing model. It is a really expensive tool in Latin America. They should have different prices for different regions."
"We are struggling with duplicates and would like to have OCR functionality when using this solution."
"The dashboards do have some room for improvement as compared to the other vendors which are there in the market."
"The analytics in FileNet are too complicated and they consume too much infrastructure, memory, and CPU. They're too expensive to work with."
"We'd like to use the docker, to have it containerized."
"There is some confusion with FileNet workflow. It's not really going into the next level. They are probably replacing it with BPM's workflow. So there's an issue of clarity, the vision for going forward."
"For end-users there is a lack of administrative features. The interface of basic FileNet is not very good."
"The new user interface is not easy to set up, so some improvements along these lines would be good."
"It could be simpler to use, considering multiple use cases."
"Simplifying both training and maintenance would be an improvement."
"The only downside is that it takes a dedicated staff to maintain it and the learning curve is pretty steep."
Hyland OnBase is ranked 8th in Enterprise Content Management with 8 reviews while IBM FileNet is ranked 6th in Enterprise Content Management with 94 reviews. Hyland OnBase is rated 8.0, while IBM FileNet is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Hyland OnBase writes "Stable content and workflow management solution with a valuable retention module". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM FileNet writes "A document management system that helps in document digitalization and workflow management". Hyland OnBase is most compared with Alfresco, SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM and Hyland Perceptive Content, whereas IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM, IBM ECM and Alfresco. See our Hyland OnBase vs. IBM FileNet report.
See our list of best Enterprise Content Management vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Content Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.