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."We found the setup process to be okay since they do offer a troubleshooting guide."
"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."
"The most valuable features are that it's very secure and provides audit trails for our documents."
"I like the cloud and its integrability."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the way in which it enables clients and customers to quickly access the content and information that they use for everyday functions."
"The most critical benefit has been ease of use. It speeds along our development helping us go to market a lot sooner."
"I would say the workflow is pretty good. Also, the flexibility of being able to create custom objects with a lot of domain-specific attributes that we follow."
"One of our clients, a customer of IBM, rolled out and replaced their existing ECM system with FileNet. Their productivity has increased pretty dramatically."
"Centralized our business documents."
"The features that I have found most valuable include the Data Capture and Case Manager features."
"The most valuable features for us are Wex (Watson) for search, Datacap for OCR/ICR, and Automation Anywhere for RPA."
"It has a straightforward approach to the install."
"The dashboards do have some room for improvement as compared to the other vendors which are there in the market."
"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 need to troubleshoot why our reports didn't get downloaded in a day. There is a workflow feature which powerful but also complicated."
"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."
"We are struggling with duplicates and would like to have OCR functionality when using this solution."
"The look and feel could be better. The integration with the user could be better. It could also be more user-friendly."
"The area of migrations to new versions must be made easier. It's quite good that they have now begun to improve the API area, to modernize the interfaces, but there's always a very big investment involved in migrating from one version to another. That prohibits rolling out new functionalities to customers. It's not so easy.... In that area, they really must improve."
"It may be a little complex to implement and take some effort."
"Simplifying both training and maintenance would be an improvement."
"However, the configuration does take a long time. Every company needs its own configuration design. It depends on how many applications are connecting to FileNet. It can take a long time, depending on the application count."
"I would like to see in FileNet integrated with Watson, which can read something and send it without any human contact or interaction."
"In terms of functionality, what customers might be looking for is a little more in terms of native-records retention. Records Management is an add-on product. If there were just a little more of that built into the core functionality, that would be helpful."
"It could be simpler to use, considering multiple use cases."
"The basic and fundamental point about FileNet is that the interface is very bad. It's just not appealing so people are reluctant to use it."
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 Box. 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.
