Alfresco vs IBM FileNet comparison

Hyland and IBM are both solutions in the Enterprise Content Management category. Hyland is ranked #7 with an average rating of 6.8, while IBM is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.9. Hyland holds a 8.0% mindshare in ECM, compared to IBM’s 6.5% mindshare. Additionally, 80% of Hyland users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 91% of IBM users who would recommend it.

Alfresco

Read 14 Alfresco reviews

3,544 Views
2,906 Comparison Views

80% willing to recommend

IBM FileNet

Read 105 IBM FileNet reviews

4,015 Views
3,694 Comparison Views

91% willing to recommend

Alfresco

IBM FileNet

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Alfresco and IBM FileNet are in the enterprise content management system category. IBM FileNet often has the upper hand due to its advanced features and comprehensive solutions, justifying a higher price tag.

Features: Alfresco supports open-source capabilities, flexibility, and modern content services for customizations. IBM FileNet offers robust security features, scalability, and sophisticated document management.

Room for Improvement: Alfresco could enhance its security and scalability to better compete with large enterprises. IBM FileNet might improve its user interface for easier setup and customization. Alfresco needs to develop a more comprehensive set of enterprise-level functionalities, while IBM FileNet should focus on simplifying the deployment process for quicker implementation.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Alfresco's cloud-native design allows easy deployment and minimal setup challenges with responsive customer service. IBM FileNet is more complex to implement due to its extensive features but includes thorough documentation and professional support.

Pricing and ROI: Alfresco offers a lower setup cost favorable for smaller enterprises seeking specific customizations, yielding quicker ROI. IBM FileNet requires higher initial investment with longer ROI, matched by extensive capabilities and scalability benefits, preferred by large organizations seeking robust infrastructure.

To learn more, read our detailed Alfresco vs. IBM FileNet Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Alfresco vs. IBM FileNet

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 peers since 2012

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

Alfresco

Ranking in Enterprise Content Management

7th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Document Management Software (1st)

IBM FileNet

Ranking in Enterprise Content Management

2nd

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

105

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Enterprise Content Management category, the mindshare of Alfresco is 8.0%, up from 7.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM FileNet is 6.5%, down from 10.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Enterprise Content Management Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
IBM FileNet	6.5%
Alfresco	8.0%
Other	85.5%

Enterprise Content Management

Featured Reviews

Jacinto Manuel Obispo Marquez

Country Head Spain at Apiux

Maintaining document integrity with persistent linking and customizable workflows

Currently, documents in Alfresco are stored on a file server, which, while good for performance, is a security risk. Clients, especially large enterprises such as banks, are concerned about document security if someone breaches the server. It would be beneficial if Alfresco offers different options for document storage, such as databases or cloud solutions. Also, it would be helpful if Alfresco's viewer could be easily embedded in other systems, as its integration is currently complex.

Read full review

Shankar-Kambhampaty

Consulting CTO at a tech consulting company with 1-10 employees

Business workflows have been automated and document processes are streamlined at large scale

I believe IBM FileNet could be improved or enhanced in the future, specifically the user interface development support, which, despite all the improvements, still feels from the 2010s or 2000s. The current state of the user interface development support and the ability to customize it leaves much to be desired. The backend engine, process engine, and object engine are fantastic. However, the user interface, which is required to provide an impressive experience to the user, is difficult to build. IBM will need to do something about this area. Over time, IBM has made improvements with enhancements through CP4BA and other tools, with which user interfaces can be built. But there is much more is needed. The initial setup process for IBM FileNet requires specialists. IBM FileNet is not a click-click-click deploy kind of product. It has several components that need to be installed in different versions and in a particular order. Additionally, IBM Cloud does not provide a proper experience. The problem is I cannot use IBM Cloud easily. I cannot even get a membership easily. With AWS, I just use my credit card, sign up, and I am done. With IBM Cloud, that is not how it is. They go through all validation processes, and it is a nightmare at times. There are problems around IBM FileNet, not exactly with IBM FileNet itself, but the point is that it is not a click-click-click deploy either on the cloud or on-premise. It requires specialists, and there is a big learning curve toward deploying and managing the whole infrastructure as well as the software. I communicate with the technical support of IBM frequently. I have communicated several times, and frankly, there is much to be desired on that side. When you raise a ticket, it takes 24 to 48 hours for them to respond. We live in a time where business moves at the speed of light. Twenty-four hours is a very long time. You need to be able to get technical support instantaneously. It is not like the more contemporary support models where you get turnaround in minutes, not days.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product allows engineering teams and developers to introduce new things in a seamless and easy way."

"Document repository."

"I like the ease of use, sections, and calendar."

"The digitalization of workflow, forms, operations, and business processes is also significant."

"Alfresco's technical support is very fast and professional."

"Alfresco allows broad searches with many index fields that you can search on, although the created fields and their values may not be intuitive."

"The most valuable feature is the flexibility of the searching elements of the metadata."

"The most valuable features of Alfresco include its integration with the scanning solution, the ability to search, and the capability to store and index to capture metadata."

More Alfresco pros

"It provides good stability and scalability for huge enterprises as well."

"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 features are the interconnectivity and the collaboration. No longer do I have to wonder what system I need to go to for the data I need. I know it's in FileNet."

"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."

"IBM FileNet is a very robust system with many functionalities for content management."

"It is a faster, robust solution. The platform compatibility is very good."

"Centralized our business documents."

"It allows for multiple people to access content simultaneously."

More IBM FileNet pros

Cons

"The configuration of Alfresco is a big challenge."

"Currently, documents in Alfresco are stored on a file server, which, while good for performance, is a security risk."

"Alfresco has a very steep learning curve, and unfortunately, during the learning process, it's very easy to make errors, which often are unforgiving."

"The setup process for Alfresco was complex."

"I think the presentation layer could be improved - currently, it's too complex, and there are too many features cluttered all over the screen."

"If you don't have proper governance, things can go wrong. You have to make rules, such as one folder should not have more than 5,000 subfolders or children."

"I would like them to consider document capture functionality."

"Alfresco could improve workflow digitalization and enhance artificial intelligence capabilities."

More Alfresco cons

"The most valuable features of IBM File Manager are workflow, content, and process capabilities."

"I think some of the technical pieces, when implementing it ourselves, were something of a roadblock until we discovered the Concierge. Those are some things they have to work on."

"The initial setup was pretty complex. There are too many options, and it can get a bit confusing."

"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."

"IBM doesn't offer new technologies every year, they offer new technologies after five years, for each release of the product."

"The current state of the user interface and the ability to customize it leaves much to be desired."

"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."

"The solution’s pricing could be improved."

More IBM FileNet cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The license for Alfresco is expensive - not the maximum, but close. There are also extra costs once you start building integrations, as implementation seems to be very costly."

"If you buy Alfresco through a partner, there is usually a OEM licensing option."

"It is cheaper compared to head-to-head competitors."

"There are costs for any upgrade or additional functions."

"When it comes to pricing, IBM needs to make an effort to improve the cost. That's the main issue regarding use of FinalNet in Columbia."

"FileNet is quite expensive, although Documentum is expensive too."

"1. It will be more expensive than estimated to setup. 2. You will need to double the staff while you are running the old system and installing the new system. 3. Depending on the number of documents to be migrated, make sure you understand the potentially massive amount of time and effort required to migrate the existing content to the new platform."

"Yearly, we pay for the maintenance, which is $20,000."

"The platform is inexpensive."

"The physical space that we have gained back pays for the service. Therefore, it has reduced our operating costs overall. We have definitely seen ROI. I would estimate $30,000 a year."

"My customers have seen ROI. There have been productivity gains, time savings gains, and things that they have been doing much more efficiently in a more modern way than they were before."

"It has reduced operating costs by reducing the amount of manual work needed."

More IBM FileNet pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Content Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

16%

Government

10%

Computer Software Company

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

Government

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	4

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	32
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	74

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Alfresco?

The pricing of Alfresco starts at $100,000, which can be expensive for small projects. There is often a transition from the community version to the licensed version, which incurs migration costs. ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Alfresco?

Currently, the challenge is the general availability to users. Initially, they had poor documentation, but over the years, their documentation has highly improved. Initially, we had challenges find...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Alfresco?

This is mainly for unstructured document management systems with workflow and data classification.

See all answers

What do you like most about IBM FileNet?

The product is robust and can process a lot of documents for enterprise content management.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM FileNet?

From the company's perspective, the licensing cost for IBM FileNet is still affordable. Though the license cost is somewhat expensive, it remains manageable. The company rates it between 3 and 5 be...

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM FileNet?

We almost do not utilize the automation capabilities of IBM FileNet to streamline our business processes. The process automation and business automation features are barely used. Currently, we prim...

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText Content Management vs Alfresco

Compared 11% of the time

OpenText Documentum Content Management vs Alfresco

Compared 9% of the time

SharePoint vs Alfresco

Compared 8% of the time

Hyland OnBase vs Alfresco

Compared 8% of the time

SS&C Blue Prism vs Alfresco

Compared 5% of the time

More Alfresco Competitors

OpenText Content Management vs IBM FileNet

Compared 14% of the time

SharePoint vs IBM FileNet

Compared 13% of the time

Hyland OnBase vs IBM FileNet

Compared 9% of the time

OpenText Documentum Content Management vs IBM FileNet

Compared 9% of the time

OpenText Content Manager vs IBM FileNet

Compared 6% of the time

More IBM FileNet Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Alfresco

January 2026

Download Alfresco product report

Buyer's Guide

IBM FileNet

January 2026

Download IBM FileNet product report

Overview

The Alfresco Digital Business Platform offers open, secure content services to let you unlock the value from your most important business information. Give users access to their content wherever and however they work with Alfresco’s open, flexible, and highly scalable cloud-native content services platform. Easily integrate and connect with everyday business applications. Find, view, collaborate on, govern, and securely share digital content—and get information to the right person at the right time.

Hyland

IBM FileNet is a leading IBM enterprise content management product family. IBM FileNet is one of the ECM solutions that can change the way a company does business by enabling users to capture, activate, socialize, analyze, and govern content throughout its lifecycle.

There are many IBM FileNet products available, all of which are integrated and based on the FileNet P8 Platform.

IBM

Sample Customers

Over 1,300 companies from 180 different countries. Including EuroStar, Saks Fifth Avenue, NASA Langley Research Center, and KLM.

Suncorp Group Limited, St. Vincent Health, Citigroup, SRCSD, and UK Dept for Work and Pensions.

Buyer's Guide

Alfresco vs. IBM FileNet

December 2025

Free Report: Alfresco vs. IBM FileNet

Find out what your peers are saying about Alfresco vs. IBM FileNet and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Alfresco 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.