No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Forms vs OpenText Documentum Content Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Adobe Experience Manager (A...
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Customer Communications Management (CCM) (5th)
OpenText Documentum Content...
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Content Management (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Forms and OpenText Documentum Content Management aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Forms is designed for Customer Communications Management (CCM) and holds a mindshare of 5.2%, down 6.3% compared to last year.
OpenText Documentum Content Management, on the other hand, focuses on Enterprise Content Management, holds 6.1% mindshare, down 12.0% since last year.
Customer Communications Management (CCM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Forms5.2%
Quadient Inspire17.4%
OpenText Communications16.7%
Other60.7%
Customer Communications Management (CCM)
Enterprise Content Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Documentum Content Management6.1%
SharePoint11.7%
Alfresco6.7%
Other75.5%
Enterprise Content Management
 

Featured Reviews

it_user692313 - PeerSpot reviewer
Managing Partner and AEM Architect at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Its flexibility and customization ability. Ease of initial setup and complete set of features to support digital marketing initiatives.
Start small and plan your first set of objectives clearly, leaving all the “nice-to-haves” for a later phase. Starting this way will help companies get a sample of the benefits, and get familiar with the tool in general. After the first phase, they may find things that they thought they wanted are not really required or can be achieved in a better, more efficient way in the AEM world. Another useful suggestion is to avoid trying to recreate your current solution using AEM; rather, try to look for new and different ways to achieve the same results that take advantage of AEM’s features.
Ashish Shelar - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Manager at IBM
Offers version control capabilities, easy to set up but highly-priced
The main thing is the cost. Most of the time, organizations move away from Documentum due to cost. It's highly-priced, and the support costs are high. Now, SharePoint and other options. Microsoft gives free licenses, so organizations mainly look for cost-effective products. The second thing is updates and patching. We patch very often, every six months or a year. We have SP1, SP2, and SP3, and then suddenly, it's moved out of support. That's the organization's main pain area. They don't want to keep investing from a storage perspective. The licensing model should be changed. The product itself is out of support. They have not considered it for AI initiatives. The new version should be on the cloud. I'm not sure if the new version of Documentum, xECM, is cloud compatible or on which cloud it is compatible, but the OpenText server itself is on a cloud, which would be beneficial to the business. And it would also be easier for migration.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"LiveCycle has a good user interface and has developed an easy way to create fillable .pdf forms."
"All these features help companies create powerful web applications that can then be customized and maintained by marketers with little involvement from IT."
"It has the ability to categorize and search."
"Two things are excellent in Documentum. One is business process management. The other is its support for metadata."
"OpenText Documentum has improved availability and performance in our organization."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText Documentum is the versioning."
"The stability is very good."
"It is quite good."
"We use this for documentation management, as it provides possibilities for us to save documents and support the business process while doing so."
"The stability is very good, and sometimes we have connection issues with the DocBase Java Method Servers or DocBroker services because our project is about 400 megabytes and very big, but the designer works hard to resolve it."
 

Cons

"Help menu is a bit difficult to navigate."
"We have found occasional issues with stability but those were, in general, caused either by custom developed code or issues in the implemented architecture."
"The documentation often leaves customers feeling somewhat frustrated, as OpenText seems to expect customers to remind them constantly about the need for better documentation, as they don't provide clear guidance on their documentation practices."
"The interface of OpenText Documentum could be more intuitive; sometimes it is hard to find where the information is located."
"The user interface can be improved. Searching for documents is complex and should be easier."
"OpenText Documentum's user interface could be improved a little bit."
"Several sub-products, like RMA and RPS are really bad stability-wise and many other aspects."
"The vertical application could be improved."
"The price of Documentum could be lower. It's quite high compared to its competitors."
"It can be somewhat cumbersome for the operations team since it’s not a cloud instance"
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"OpenText Documentum has announced a new licensing model, which could be more expensive."
"OpenText Documentum's pricing is good."
"It falls in line with a lot of things that are out there on the market. There is nothing extraordinary in terms of great or bad."
"It is quite an expensive product."
"The price is considered affordable now."
"The product is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Customer Communications Management (CCM) solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
25%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise28
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with OpenText Documentum?
The interface of OpenText Documentum could be more intuitive; sometimes it is hard to find where the information is located.
What is your primary use case for OpenText Documentum?
We are using it to archive the information about our sales.
What advice do you have for others considering OpenText Documentum?
One of my colleagues has found some automation features. It is not my responsibility regarding security features; I am new to this job, so I do not have those responsibilities now. I am not using a...
 

Also Known As

Adobe LiveCycle
Dell EMC Documentum, Documentum , Documentum xCelerated Composition Platform
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

State of Illinois, Department of Human Services
Agility; Bibliotheca Alexandrina; Capitec Bank; Department of Social Development, Republic of South Africa; County of Los Angeles, Department of Human Resources; Fresenius Kabi; Heathrow Airport; Lahey Health; Linde PLC; Milestone Pharma Co. Ltd; National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development; Open Grid Europe GmbH; REPCO NEX Industrial Solutions; Springer Nature; Syngene International; Tata Power DDL; University of Texas Austin
Find out what your peers are saying about Quadient, OpenText, RingCentral and others in Customer Communications Management (CCM). Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.