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."I like the cloud and its integrability."
"The solution is very developed and we are not taking full advantage of its functionalities."
"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."
"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 features are that it's very secure and provides audit trails for our documents."
"We found the setup process to be okay since they do offer a troubleshooting guide."
"It has increased our productivity."
"Provides records management functions."
"If we run into problems, which is inevitable (and we run into problems all the time), we get quick responses and good solutions back from the technical support."
"It has an excellent document storage repository, which is good at what it does."
"It has given us a whole new environment to do document management and document storage."
"The most valuable feature for me is the possibility to share and to collaborate, the possibility to connect FileNet with many other IBM products as well. It helps avoid the possibility of creating "island applications." We have an ecosystem where everything can be interconnected."
"Gves us the ability to create an end-to-end [document] transaction."
"The ability to manage the content well."
"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 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."
"Simplifying both training and maintenance would be an improvement."
"One of the things I know is a bit of a challenge for them - because I know that it lives on top of FileNet, so it's not necessarily living on top of a relational database, per se - is that we also are using it as our system of record for our language management and our language definitions. I know that that was a little bit of a challenge, just because of the underlying architecture."
"It is stable as long as you create the right environment. We have had issues at times, but just because of configuration issues."
"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."
"To start with there are too many add-ons, which makes it hard for us. If they simplified the add-ons and plugins to be added to our existing systems, it would definitely help us in the future."
"There is room for improvement in the scanning solution, Datacap. It's improving all the time. But since it's more an end-user software, the end-users are constantly improving their processes, and I believe that sometimes we're not catching up with their requirements."
"I think some of the technical pieces, when implementing it ourselves, were something of a roadblock until we discovered the Concierge. Those are some things they have to work on."
"A little better control into the ACLs of FileNet and databases."
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.
