Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM FileNet vs OpenText Content Manager comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.5
IBM FileNet boosts efficiency, reduces costs and errors, enhances productivity, and offers significant financial benefits through automation and quicker access.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText Content Manager improves efficiency and security, though requires more support and integration compared to modern solutions.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.2
IBM FileNet's customer service is positively rated but faces challenges with resolution delays, time zones, and consultant training.
Sentiment score
5.6
OpenText Content Manager support varies; users praise premium help but note deficiencies and complexity, especially after third-party involvement.
People come from all over the world, and they have specialists at the other end of the world to help if needed.
For IBM FileNet, I give a rating of nine out of ten.
The product-level support is better now than before.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.6
IBM FileNet offers scalable infrastructure, seamlessly integrates with systems, and efficiently supports large data volumes and automation processes.
Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText Content Manager is scalable but challenges arise with large deployments, suggesting planning and using cloud platforms for enhancement.
The bigger products like IBM FileNet can handle billions of documents and thousands of users.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
IBM FileNet is reliable with 99.9% uptime, praised for stability, despite initial setup issues and occasional large document concerns.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText Content Manager's stability is generally rated high, but integration and scalability issues affect some users' experiences.
FileNet was restricted to DB2's enterprise edition instead of the standard edition, causing complications.
In terms of stability, we haven't experienced any big technical issues or downtime with IBM FileNet.
 

Room For Improvement

IBM FileNet needs improved integration, usability, cloud capabilities, automation, and AI features, with reduced complexity and cost.
OpenText Content Manager needs enhancements in integration, usability, search, security, installation, pricing, and service responsiveness for better user experience.
The response time and resolution of issues by technical support need improvement.
FileNet needs improvement in pricing as it has become very expensive.
There are only a few products large enterprises can choose from, and it doesn't really matter which one as it often depends on the consultants and the team implementing the solution.
 

Setup Cost

IBM FileNet's high costs and complex pricing make it a significant investment, mainly suited for larger enterprises.
OpenText Content Manager's licensing is complex and expensive, but negotiation and customization are possible despite high ongoing costs.
The price is high, with yearly subscriptions increasing day by day.
The product has become more expensive and requires significant investment for enterprise solutions.
FileNet and similar enterprise-level tools require substantial costs, starting in the millions.
 

Valuable Features

IBM FileNet offers robust document management with automation, integration, security, and excellent compatibility with business applications for efficiency.
OpenText Content Manager offers efficient document management with strong search, customization, integration, security, and large-scale enterprise support.
The main features we find impactful are the workflow and document management along with FileNet file stores.
It stands out for its integration capabilities, making it a practical choice for our needs in managing content and related tasks.
At this level, companies don't buy a ready-made solution.
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM FileNet
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
101
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Content Manager
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
7th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
File Archiving (4th), Document Management Software (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Enterprise Content Management category, the mindshare of IBM FileNet is 10.6%, up from 9.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Content Manager is 4.2%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Content Management
 

Featured Reviews

Emad Rizki - PeerSpot reviewer
Facilitates seamless integration for large enterprises with strong deployment capabilities
FileNet was scalable and could be implemented into big multinational organizations. However, it has become very expensive recently. Compared to low-code solutions such as Appian and outsystems, FileNet has gaps, mainly because it requires coding, which is not preferred by clients due to pricing concerns in Pakistan. We transitioned clients to cloud solutions, although FileNet has been strongly integrated with on-prem deployments.
Maurice Riverso - PeerSpot reviewer
Our our official repository and it has disposal management and retention management
The security architecture is the only problem as it's a little bit complex and too torturous at times. So it could be improved a little bit, but it is regarded as a very good system in Australia. It's probably overly subscribed. Also, what's missing is what people would like, which is basically online collaboration. That's a problem. But it has so many other things to offer that SharePoint, I'm sure, will not have. So, that will be an interesting issue to come up. It's not very good at providing stable and robust add-ins to Microsoft. That's a bit of a problem with Content Manager. They're kind of very volatile. So, that's been definitely something that could be improved.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Content Management solutions are best for your needs.
842,388 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
10%
Insurance Company
9%
Government
20%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
University
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM FileNet?
The product is robust and can process a lot of documents for enterprise content management.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM FileNet?
The product has become more expensive and requires significant investment for enterprise solutions.
What needs improvement with IBM FileNet?
FileNet needs improvement in pricing as it has become very expensive. Also, in comparison to local solutions, the need for coding is a disadvantage.
What do you like most about Micro Focus Content Manager?
An advantage is integration with your IP directory.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Content Manager?
Pricing is a disadvantage as it is very expensive, especially in this market.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Content Manager?
Pricing is an issue, as it is too expensive. Support and services need to be more user-friendly. The support has been slow, and there is room for improvement. Additionally, they could improve build...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Content Manager, HPE Records Manager, HPE Content Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Suncorp Group Limited, St. Vincent Health, Citigroup, SRCSD, and UK Dept for Work and Pensions.
Missouri State Courts
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM FileNet vs. OpenText Content Manager and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
842,388 professionals have used our research since 2012.