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."The solution is very developed and we are not taking full advantage of its functionalities."
"I like the cloud and its integrability."
"We found the setup process to be okay since they do offer a troubleshooting guide."
"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 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 most valuable features are that it's very secure and provides audit trails for our documents."
"The beauty is the response time. It is very good nowadays within the platform."
"It is a faster, robust solution. The platform compatibility is very good."
"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."
"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."
"I have found that it scales well."
"It has a straightforward approach to the install."
"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."
"[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."
"The look and feel could be better. The integration with the user could be better. It could also be more user-friendly."
"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."
"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."
"The dashboards do have some room for improvement as compared to the other vendors which are there in the market."
"We need to troubleshoot why our reports didn't get downloaded in a day. There is a workflow feature which powerful but also complicated."
"We are struggling with duplicates and would like to have OCR functionality when using this solution."
"Developers like us have an upgraded interface. That interface does not work in the process that we have today. It hangs and is not user-friendly."
"I would rate the technical support as medium. I do not like the login process. It is not great."
"It is ability to display legacy content needs improvement."
"There is room for improvement in the file management. It's very complex."
"We brought DocuSign into our company's solution three years before. At that time there was no direct integration. We would like to pull documents out from FileNet, push them to DocuSign and, when done, retrieve them and store them back in FileNet. We wrote our own custom solution for that. It would be nice if there was some tool we could have used to do that."
"In Content Navigator we want to see the ability to view different types of video... We are using HTML 5 but it's very limited... We definitely want to see support for most types of video formats in the market."
"I would say the installation process can be very complicated, and you need to to have an experience resource."
"It needs better collaboration between the IBM teams on the FileNet and CCM sides."
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 Alfresco. 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.
