Box vs IBM FileNet comparison

Box and IBM FileNet compete in the cloud storage and document management category. Box seems to have an upper hand in ease of deployment and customer service based on user feedback, while IBM FileNet is preferred for extensive enterprise capabilities and scalability.

Features: Box offers real-time collaboration, integration with Microsoft Office, and secure file sharing that appeal to businesses looking for flexible cloud storage solutions. IBM FileNet provides robust document management features, including scalability, record management, and deep content management capabilities suitable for larger enterprises.

Room for Improvement: Box users have indicated a need for better search functionality, expanded integration options, and enhanced security features for enterprise use. IBM FileNet faces challenges with a complex installation process, high licensing costs, and difficulties in integrating with other solutions.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Box supports both private and public cloud solutions, offering more flexible deployment and receiving positive feedback for its proactive customer service, though some delays in technical support are noted. IBM FileNet, primarily deployed on-premises, is valued for its stability but criticized for complex deployment and variable customer service quality dependent on the service contract level.

Pricing and ROI: Box is considered cost-effective and offers both free and enterprise-level options, although it could improve pricing transparency regarding API calls. It shows strong ROI in terms of time savings. IBM FileNet, while more expensive with costly licensing and complex agreements, is seen as a worthwhile investment for data management efficiencies in large enterprises due to its scalability and integration capabilities.