We performed a comparison between IBM OpenPages and RSA Archer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two GRC solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The content, reporting, and workflow features stand out as the most valuable aspects."
"The ability to keep a record of internal incidents in the company, and also the monitoring of Key Indicators."
"The product’s interface is very intuitive."
"Its user interface is pretty neat, and there is flexibility in generating the data. You can customize reports at any level. You can directly get reports in Tableau format. If you want to generate statistical data, you can create reports with graphs. There is an adequate amount of flexibility for changing the format, the type of graphs, etc."
"The last project was for an investment group that was using Excel. Shifting their records from one position to another took approximately 15 minutes. In Archer, we created a workflow for them to leverage it, and they could send the single record with one click to one person within seconds. The whole process went from 15 minutes to two minutes to get the approval for the records. The main purpose of Archer is to just make it easy."
"The most valuable features are the advanced workflow and the dashboards. This tool can present data wonderfully to management, and it is easy for them to manage the risk plans."
"I have found all the features to be valuable, including those involving reporting, the dashboard, notifications, email modules, the database and data input."
"I like how Archer requires very little programming ability. A person with minimum coding experience can configure the necessary fields in Archer. It's more of a drag-and-drop solution."
"Flexible record permissions and data import features."
"The solution has improved my organization by having everything combined to a single platform."
"RSA Archer's best features are advanced workflow, reports, dashboards, and notifications."
"The solution must allow customization in reporting."
"I believe there's room for improvement in establishing connections with external information."
"IBM OpenPages needs improvement in its UI. Currently, it is difficult to see the relationships (associations/parents) between all items unless you click on the item itself."
"Performance could be improved."
"Some areas are not truly automated but are only scheduled."
"In terms of what can be improved, our client always says their user experience, IU/UX in RSA Archer. They found it is not as user friendly as other tools."
"The product is expensive."
"There should be a way to export and get data from the system in PDF or PowerPoint presentation format. This would be a great addition."
"I would like to have the ability to build and maintain an inventory of personal data processing activities and assets utilizing a purpose-built taxonomy and data structure."
"The bullet chart is the best graph for my purposes, and it should be available for inclusion in the dashboards."
"It's resource-hungry, that's the best way of putting it."
IBM OpenPages is ranked 8th in GRC with 5 reviews while RSA Archer is ranked 1st in GRC with 38 reviews. IBM OpenPages is rated 6.6, while RSA Archer is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM OpenPages writes "Enables us to manage global workflow and users' relationships with the links". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA Archer writes "A rich application with good workflow, but search feature needs improvement". IBM OpenPages is most compared with MetricStream, SAP BusinessObjects GRC, OneTrust GRC, AuditBoard and SAS Enterprise GRC, whereas RSA Archer is most compared with OneTrust GRC, MetricStream, Microsoft Purview Communication Compliance, Workiva Wdesk and AuditBoard. See our IBM OpenPages vs. RSA Archer report.
See our list of best GRC vendors and best IT Governance vendors.
We monitor all GRC 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.