We performed a comparison between IBM FileNet and OpenText Documentum 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."The ability to manage the content well."
"The beauty is the response time. It is very good nowadays within the platform."
"We shred all our paper and no longer need the cabinet space. We used to have about six to 12 inches of cabinet space per customer, which is now gone."
"It is a faster, robust solution. The platform compatibility is very good."
"There are a lot of valuable features, but the biggest advantage is that this system is stable; it's always online, it always works... once it's configured and running, we don't need to touch it and constantly make changes to it. It's a low-maintenance platform."
"It is really usable. There is a lot of support for it. You have the online components to trawl through the storage. I have a lot of fun with it."
"It is used by large enterprises. It has to be scalable and robust for them to use. We have seen that on multiple projects over the years."
"We have probably cut out at least 40 percent of what the work process was by easing out that whole distribution of paper."
"The most valuable feature of Documentum for our content management needs is its ability to segregate access based on department and role."
"The tool's most valuable feature is ACL, which helps to control the user groups that access the documents."
"The stability is very good."
"Two things are excellent in Documentum. One is business process management. The other is its support for metadata."
"We like Documentum for its capacity and reliability."
"I appreciate Documentum's scalability, allowing for vast volumes of content storage."
"OpenText Documentum has improved availability and performance in our organization."
"We primarily use it for storing documents. We host a variety of documents in OpenText Documentum. This includes raw files, analyzed files, and documents in multiple formats."
"We know that they're looking at documents, but we don't know what documents they're actually going and finding the most, or where the bottlenecks might be. It would be nice if there was some interconnectivity back into Bluemix to say, "Ok, you've got a workflow problem here." That would be a neat feature moving forward because we've got a lot of users that would just say, "The system is not working." We had a few threads would get hung up because they were just constantly banging on these few documents. If that were the case, if we knew that ahead of time, then we could fix that, change the search sequences to make it more efficient. But we were blind to that until the users said it's not working."
"I think the support could be better, and it could improve."
"Our client feels FileNet does not provide them with content searchability. They feel it's cumbersome. They're only using Metadata. If the Metadata is not well-populated, it becomes a problem to retrieve a document."
"It is ability to display legacy content needs improvement."
"It could be simpler to use, considering multiple use cases."
"The FileNet API seems like it is very difficult and not transparent."
"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."
"Programmers have to translate user needs into IBM FileNet, which causes misinterpretations."
"The vertical application could be improved."
"The user interface can be improved."
"OpenText Documentum is moving to the cloud, and I am concerned about the security aspect of it."
"One area for improvement in OpenText Documentum is its handling of outdated documents, especially technical ones."
"It needs a better UI and it should also be cloud-ready. The UI has not changed in years."
"We mostly use the Life Sciences package. That package is somewhat dated. There should be enhancements to the Life Science package and additional offerings to support pharma in particular."
"They should develop something so that bugs don't happen in our project. We make changes manually and some bugs happen."
"The main issue is the software's performance when storing around 10 million or more documents. It becomes slow and needs improvement. Perhaps it's a cloud-related issue, but it needs to be addressed. It could be due to our S3 bucket or something else. Nevertheless, this is a significant challenge we're facing."
IBM FileNet is ranked 6th in Enterprise Content Management with 94 reviews while OpenText Documentum is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Content Management with 26 reviews. IBM FileNet is rated 8.2, while OpenText Documentum is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM FileNet writes "A document management system that helps in document digitalization and workflow management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Documentum writes "Saves time and increases an organization's productivity". IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Extended ECM, IBM ECM, Alfresco and Hyland OnBase, whereas OpenText Documentum is most compared with OpenText Extended ECM, SharePoint, Hyland OnBase, Alfresco and OpenText Content Manager. See our IBM FileNet vs. OpenText Documentum 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.
