SharePoint Reviews

Our primary use case is for file sharing. SharePoint is implemented in our environment for files and user sharing. We also use it for simultaneous editions.

We had all the group files registered in SharePoint, including all local files. It was possible to share the information more securely. 

The online editing capabilities, file sharing, auditing, information security, ease of solution management, and the easy user adaptation to the platform are the most valuable features. 

The way to change the version of the files in SharePoint should be improved. The method of synchronizing files from local to the cloud can also use improvement. 

I would also like to see improvements in the interface, speed to load the page, mark favorite directories, synchronize the most recent, and the least accessed files automatically do the archiving. I would like to have an option at the first sync to choose more locations on your computer.

We have been using this solution for more than five years.

The stability of SharePoint is very good, amazing.

SharePoint is easy and has new features now. Scalability with SharePoint is good and easy for us at work. To maintain the product, we do not need a large amount of professionals, we currently have three professionals to administer the platform.

Technical support with SharePoint is very good, very easy and includes support for multiple languages. It can be opened by several channels.

Positive

What motivated us to switch solutions was the easy solution management, space scalability, additional features, easy synchronization, data security, and sharing control.

The initial configuration of SharePoint was very easy. The configuration, training, and communication with the users took less than two months.

Internal deployment of the system was conducted through a Microsoft partner and was very easy. We had our internal professionals deploy the system together.

With regards to licensing, it depends a lot on what you need to do, there are many plans, and options to choose from, you need to plan and enjoy 100% of what the product offers, so you can decide if the value is right.

I used several products, but sharepoint brought them all together. I used windows file server, linux, file versioners, website to share documents.

Compared with other products, SharePoint is very good. We do not have other products that are as good as SharePoint.

SharePoint is definitely richer in features with functionality which helps us to get our work done. I would rate SharePoint a 10 out of 10.

The solution is integrated with the entire Microsoft platform, from e-mail to Azure computing, so the solution as a whole is easy to manage and has a central administration that facilitates the view of the entire environment.

SharePoint allows us to access and to search for what we have in our repositories.

What I like about SharePoint is that they keep up with a lot of updates, and they bring out new features. I also like that the system is integrated with the Microsoft 365 suite of apps.

Document management and the ability to easily integrate single sign-on (SSO) are areas for improvement in SharePoint.

Integrating SharePoint with other software is what I'd like to see in its next release.

I've used SharePoint in the last 12 months. We use it internally in our organization.

The stability of SharePoint needs improvement, because once you start to get a large amount of data, it becomes very unwieldy, and it takes a long time to index. There are much better products for content management and knowledge management, when compared to SharePoint.

SharePoint is not as scalable, particularly when implementing larger projects. It's good for small-scale implementation.

I haven't personally contacted the technical support for SharePoint. It's our support team who contacts them.

I used HPE Content Manager, formerly TRIM software, which used to be owned by TRIM here in Australia. We used TRIM a lot, then it was bought out by HPE, HPE has now been bought out by Microsoft.

Our organization chose SharePoint because they wanted to become accredited with Microsoft. They saw that Microsoft was the industry leader, so everyone wanted Microsoft. They saw Microsoft as the way forward, at the time.

The initial setup for SharePoint was complex. Anything from Microsoft is complex.

We implemented SharePoint in-house. We had a team that had experience with SharePoint when we decided to use it as our content management system. We had the skills from implementation and from attending numerous Microsoft training courses.

SharePoint is probably cheaper than dedicated, larger, and more useful content management systems, so you could get a return on investment from it, as long as you keep your infrastructure and everything up to date, and move to the new version when you have to.

You have to pay for a license to use SharePoint, and any extended support from Microsoft is expensive. For example: if you have SharePoint 2013 and it reaches its end of life and goes out of support, you can migrate to SharePoint online, and that's a benefit, but you'll have to pay for extended support.

I evaluated Lotus Notes and HPE Content Manager.

In terms of what features I found valuable in SharePoint, I haven't found many. I had come from IBM and was very entrenched with Lotus Notes and the Lotus Notes environment. I love Lotus Notes. When IBM sold Lotus, we started to move away from Notes, and I didn't like it, and then I was made redundant. Now I've been outside of IBM, having to use Microsoft, and I hate it.

My advice to people looking into using SharePoint for the first time is for them to 
look at how much data they have, and also look at the volume their data and data holdings are going to grow to. They should look at how long it would take to get to that point, then look at their ROI, and whether they would need to upgrade to another product in the near future. I'd say "Yes. Go for it.", but they should also look at the future, and how it would be long term.

I'm rating SharePoint a seven. Yes, it's good for organizations to start on knowledge management, but you'd have to look at how quickly you think your data will grow, and how soon it would take to get to that point, because it can become unwieldy.

Our company is a consulting partner of Microsoft. We're a service integrator that works in both the private and Australian Federal Government sectors.

• Enterprise Content Management.
• eServices Platform for developing applications on top off it.
• Organization Portals.
• Collaboration, Team working and sharing.
• Document Management.
• Simple workflows.
• Enterprise Search.

• Team sites and collaboration.
• Main entry point for all applications.
• Utilizing as a sign-on.

• Workflows.
• Performance.
• Content Migration and sharing.
• Reporting.
• User experience and design response.

I’ve used and implemented this software since the 2007 version until now (almost 9 years). My last implementation was in 2014, but I’m still using this as an end user.

We did have stability issues in the old versions and there were too many hotfixes, in the 2013 version. It’s more stable now, but it can still be better.

I've never encountered any scalability issues. In the past, I’ve implemented it in with 3TB of information, without any problems.

Technical support was very good, very responsive and professional.

We used to employ Oracle UCM, but we replaced it because of the features provided in SharePoint along with the customizations, flexibility and ease of creating websites, workflows, pages and applications.

Initial setup was straightforward, easy and successful.

SharePoint is a suite of features and products within one product. Purchasing and implementing it needs optimal usage planning. I would recommend that you select the pricing or license type based on your usage. (In general, the internet license is the best).

We evaluated multiple alternatives including:

• Oracle UCM
• EMC Documentum
• FileNet IBM
• Alfresco
• Liferay

Based on two selection exercises in two organizations; SharePoint was the best fit solution. The 2nd was EMC Documentum, then Oracle followed by FileNet and Alfresco, with Liveray last.

Plan, Plan and Plan again! Usage planning is needed with up to 70% of your efforts being expended in information gathering and implementation and usage planning.

It is an eDMS. We use it for electronic document management.

The security feature is valuable. We have control over who has access to what and when. We also have the audit trails to review who accessed what at what time. The document versioning is also a valuable feature. We can have multiple versions of the same document. If there is an issue or if there's something that we missed on a document, we can easily roll back to the previous version and get our data the way it was.

The product must provide more automation. We must be able to automate tasks instead of doing them manually. The product must enable customization of features. It must allow integration with other systems. Integrating the tool into databases like Oracle or Microsoft SQL and pulling data from SharePoint would be helpful.

I have been using the solution for close to five years.

I am satisfied with the tool’s stability. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The tool is scalable. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We have eight users in our organization.

The initial setup is easy. I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. It is a cloud solution. A person with some knowledge about the solution can deploy it in four to five hours. One person can do the deployment.

The product is reasonably priced.

I will recommend the solution to others because of its security features. Security is key for any organization. The tool is very scalable and stable. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

What makes SharePoint special is that it applies to a wide range of company scenarios; document management, knowledge management, project management, and records management.

When you want to save information, collaborate, or discover information, SharePoint is the first point-of-contact. You can search, use metadata, or access content via business intelligence created as Excel reports or dashboards. You can also access data from PowerPoint presentations, PowerBI, JavaScript. or jQuery.

Since the core structure is based on ASP.NET technology, you can manage simple development projects using standard .NET developers who have no specialization. You are also able to brand the product using HTML, CSS and JavaScript.

SharePoint has benefitted us a lot regarding optimization. We can automate document management, project management, and basic service desk functions.

The biggest value is that you are able to integrate systems using workflow management middleware. You can also use business intelligence to integrate data and display output on a SharePoint page with predefined restrictions applied for separate security groups.

There is occasionally a problem when an organization has several in-house developed systems without any integration connectors, etc. But this is only an issue in some really specific cases.

The allowed size of document libraries and lists, i.e., the number of items allowed, needs to be increased. This was already improved in the latest 2016 version of SharePoint.

Also, there need to be more options to brand solutions without needing developers. This would be good for end users.

I specialized in the implementation, configuration, and branding of SharePoint for about 7+years. I’ve implemented solutions for many customers, large and small, in many architecture scenarios.

Stability is always a big issue, but not from the view of SharePoint itself. It’s more of an issue from the architecture and infrastructure point of view. Many customers implement SharePoint on virtual machines with dynamic memory allocation. VMs have slow disk access speeds that are below recommended specifications.

In these situations, there are always issues with stability, especially regarding search services, etc. For example, if you installed SharePoint on a virtual machine with dynamic memory, it could destroy the farm without any possibility of repairing it. You will then have to reinstall the whole farm. This would really be a big problem in the case of a farm with 10 virtual servers.

Scalability issue are related to the previous question regarding stability.

The main burden of technical support is on Microsoft partners, who implemented the particular solution. If customers want extra support from Microsoft, it is possible I think, but only if they have Software Assurance or an Enterprise Agreement. Even if a customer has one of these, they still mostly use Microsoft Partners for consulting, maintenance, or new projects.

I previously used SharePoint Services 3, SharePoint Server 2007/2010/2013. Now, I am using SharePoint Online 2016 in a hybrid model that has new features and some new innovations. There are many reasons to switch.

The initial setup was really difficult, because we had no experience. But, together with my colleagues, we managed to solve the initial issues. Then, we used specialized consultants to help us. All subsequent implementations, even in our own environment, were successful. There is always some troubleshooting to do, but this is normal.

I advise to really plan carefully before implementing a solution. You need to allocate the correct number of licenses of various types (standard versus enterprise), including the required SQL licenses. Be careful with SQL licensing as many companies get this wrong. Licenses for other systems, for example, AD CALs or terminal server CALs, also need to be considered.

One of the most common mistakes is that a project plan will not take into account the use of features that require an enterprise license to run. For example, if the planners allocate only 50 enterprise licenses and the rest are standard licenses, there may not be enough enterprise licenses for all the components that need them.

My advice is to look around the Internet and find some justification to negotiate with your boss to buy this product. Alternatively, you could go to the cloud as well and create a hybrid model to reduce the cost of infrastructure (using Azure/Office 365).

Also, optimize your business using automation, forms, document management, etc.

I mostly use the solution for the creation and sharing of documents.

SharePoint is easy to collaborate with.

The solution's support services and GenAI could be improved and made faster and more knowledgeable.

I have been using SharePoint for more than two years.

I rate the solution’s stability eight and a half out of ten.

SharePoint is a scalable solution.

I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward and doesn't take much time.

Our IT team deploys the solution.

The solution has good integration capabilities. SharePoint supports remote work and team collaboration within our company. The solution's workflow data analysis and AI-driven content organization are good. I would recommend the solution to other users because of its reliability and AI features. SharePoint has helped our organization save time and money.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight to nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for SharePoint is for document sharing and file sharing in projects where participants are from different organizations. It is a very good tool for users or participants of teams from different tenants inside the organization.

What I like most about SharePoint would depend on what the task is, e.g. if it's just simple document sharing then the document library is fine. The most exciting feature of the platform is that it's a no code or low code development platform. There's also Power Apps and Power Automate.

Despite the enthusiasm and very good promises offered by SharePoint, the usage of the power platform is limited, so that's an area for improvement, but I would suggest this just as a team feature.

It's hard to highlight other areas for improvement, but a better approach towards licensing power platform components for guest users would be great. SharePoint licensing costs could be lowered to introduce it to the outside guests of a tenant, then to supply them with power apps and power automate features.

A more straightforward integration with Azure, including better licensing in terms of using Azure components and functions, is also another area for improvement in SharePoint.

My advice for Microsoft, and this is something I'd like to see in the next release of  SharePoint, is for them to constantly improve training material. Currently, the training material is organized in a way where a new feature appears and is enforced, then they develop the training material for that new feature. What happens is that the total product or solution, e.g. SharePoint, then lacks overall introduction in terms of training. There should be a balance between the introduction of the tool and the introduction of the new feature. They should have comprehensive introductory courses for both Office 365 and SharePoint, instead of needing to Google for particular situations. I'm trying to get the knowledge bit by bit, so I'm losing the idea of the whole product, e.g. SharePoint is losing its essence. To get onboarded to any new product, it's important to get a good introduction into that product.

I've been using SharePoint since 2006, so I've seen its "many flavors".

I find SharePoint to be stable. No complaints there.

I have no complaints about the scalability of SharePoint.

The support system for SharePoint works pretty well. We had a complicated situation about the reasoning why tenants and users are limited in terms of functionality, and the escalation and resolving of that issue, of that situation, went pretty fast, even for experimental features. It was quite straightforward to get access to experimental features, or find out why this access is limited, then fix it. I'm happy with the technical support for SharePoint.

The initial setup of SharePoint is very straightforward. Microsoft did a very good job with onboarding new users of their platform, e.g. the Office 365 platform. There were a lot of good improvements for administrators of tenants of different parts of Office 365, including SharePoint.

We implemented SharePoint through our in-house team, because we are a technology company, so we didn't need to use external experts or specialists for the deployment of the platform.

I'm using SharePoint as part of Office 365, using it as a part of Teams and under the hood of Teams, so yes, I'm still using SharePoint.

SharePoint is deployed on public cloud. We have some projects where SharePoint 2019 is deployed as a server, but those are based on an integrations app, but mostly it's on Office 365, e.g. SharePoint Online. Microsoft is the cloud provider we're using for the platform.

I want to highlight that some organic growth was missed with Teams, because there's still complicated switching between tenants, e.g. Teams and SharePoint users. In this case, Teams users may work in different organizations, or are guests of different tenants and different organizations. Switching between tenants, or the ability to streamline and organize identity management logging into the system, e.g. to the cloud, to Office 365 with one ID or organization ID should provide options to do work with many organizations at the same time.

Currently, there is still the need to switch from one organization to another, to get the full toolsets of a particular tenant, so for users, that's quite annoying. For one organization that fits, and that works fine for an organization with guest users, but when we have multi-tenant situations, when people are collaborating on different projects, and when initiated or hosted by different organizations, switching from one organization to another should be improved.

We have 40 to 50 users of SharePoint, and they are involved in various projects run by customers. We also add users from other organizations, so the total collaboration space may include 200 to 300 users.

My advice to people thinking about using SharePoint, the very important lessons I learned during years of using the tool, is for them not to fight with it, e.g. they should not start to use it based on what they initially wished to use it for. It's best to first spend more time in getting a better understanding of the tool and its relevant capabilities. Learn SharePoint first. Spend time learning it.

I would give SharePoint a rating of nine out of ten.

When an organization is using Microsoft products already, the integration with the Microsoft Office products and the ability to leverage web-based Office products can transform business processes. I think there is a great benefit in integrating collaboration, e-mail, document management, workflow, and content management in one product. When I have been in the role of Information Architect, I took advantage of site content, metadata, advanced searches (FAST), web parts and the free applications.

There are a large number of solid third-party vendors that develop web apps that are easy to integrate and configure.

In smaller organizations or organizations with limited budgets, I was able to leverage SharePoint to provide a lot of functionality around workflows, content and document management with very limited customized development.

When implemented correctly, SharePoint and Office 365 can provide knowledge workers with the information they need quickly and it can provide for team collaboration. I have used it to transform relationships between business units and to break down silos.

I would focus on improving:

• Integration with other enterprise products.
• Simpler API.
• Enhanced ability to report against structured and unstructured data in the environment.
• More flexible security or training: I have noticed in organizations I joined that they lock down SharePoint so much, there is very limited functionality. As a result, teams in the same organization move to other collaboration tools when they would not need to.
• Enhanced ability for users to back up and restore at various levels of the architecture.
• Have SharePoint and Office 365 expand so that additional third-party products for document management are not necessary.

I have used it for over 10 years.

Any issues regarding stability are generally caused by a lack of governance from planning of the underlying infrastructure through ongoing operations. With best practices in rolling out any application from an infrastructure planning and operations perspective, stability is not a significant issue.

Frankly, I would make a case for many organizations to go with the SaaS-based option. I investigated the security around Office 365 in the past and it was HIPAA and PSI compliant. When organizations host these types of solutions instead of leveraging commodity hardware and expertise in a SAAS environment, that is where the issues of stability and scalability come up.

Technical support is excellent.

I have used Google and still do today. It is less expensive as a personal solution to document management, archiving and collaboration. It also integrates with my personal Google e-mail solution.

Rolling out the enterprise version and ensuring integration with other products, budgeting for the hardware, and ensuring governance was not easy for SharePoint. However, I did leverage all of the plans and checklists that Microsoft provided, which made the process much simpler.

Office 365 was very simple to setup and I liked the ease of expanding storage when needed.

It really depends on the size of the organization. For small organizations, I would advise them on just purchasing Office 365 for what they need in the next year or two. They can always scale up. In larger organizations, I would love to have the enterprise version. However, not every organization can afford the cost.

I compared it against Google's solution.

I would advise others looking into implementing this product to consider Office 365 as a SaaS solution. I would also provide a governance plan and some common templates and training to get them started.

I would advise them to start with the teams that will leverage the product.

I would recommend finding ways to combine business process re-engineering with rolling out sites. This would be an easy win: combining process improvement with content management, document management, workflow and collaboration.

I would tell them to expect some amount of customization depending on what they wanted to leverage the product for.

As a portal, EDM platform for organizations, I think it is an excellent product. The limitations I have seen are the implementation and expectations of the technology, not the technology itself.