We performed a comparison between IBM FileNet and Oracle Content Management 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 usability is very good. We like the Content Navigator. It's very easy to use the search and retrieve for documents and has a lot of options for the user to download documents or send an email."
"The features that I have found most valuable include the Data Capture and Case Manager features."
"The application, in terms of durability, has been able to withstand the usage, given that it was installed in 2003 and it's still working."
"The natural interpolatability with IBM Datacap, that is a key component of our solution, as well as with BPM, and WebSphere Portal. That's why we prefer FileNet instead of some other, less world-class solution."
"[The most valuable features are] scalability and ease of use. These features are important because the customer where we have deployed it has millions of documents... And over the last five years, the volume of the documents has been increasing. It's handling all of them and without any errors."
"It has given us a whole new environment to do document management and document storage."
"The most valuable feature is access control."
"It puts governance in place around the content and processes. Access levels can be set to certain parts of the document based on role level."
"It's a comprehensive solution for managing documents within our organization's management framework."
"I would like to see it able to capture NLP in an advanced search. It would also be good if it could capture images and segregate them in categories within a span of seconds."
"We'd like to use the docker, to have it containerized."
"The FileNet API seems like it is very difficult and not transparent."
"It is stable as long as you create the right environment. We have had issues at times, but just because of configuration issues."
"The usability is fair. It could be a bit better. It could be better designed. They could put more effort into the user experience and do a better job of integrating other components, like Datacap, to be a bit more seamless."
"I know it took them seven months to convert, so the initial setup was, probably to some degree, complex."
"For end-users there is a lack of administrative features. The interface of basic FileNet is not very good."
"I would like IBM to improve with each release, continue moving towards a continual, tighter integration, and build solutions that take advantage of all the different modules the platform has from one place."
"Oracle Content Management poses complexities in initial implementation and configuration."
IBM FileNet is ranked 6th in Enterprise Content Management with 94 reviews while Oracle Content Management is ranked 11th in Enterprise Content Management with 2 reviews. IBM FileNet is rated 8.2, while Oracle Content Management is rated 9.0. 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 Oracle Content Management writes "Streamlines document management and enhances collaboration through its robust features and intuitive interface". IBM FileNet is most compared with SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM, IBM ECM and Hyland OnBase, whereas Oracle Content Management is most compared with Oracle WebCenter, SharePoint, Adobe Experience Manager, Microsoft OneDrive and Microsoft Purview Records Management. See our IBM FileNet vs. Oracle Content Management 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.
