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

CA View vs OpenText Content Manager 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

CA View
Ranking in Document Management Software
16th
Average Rating
10.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Content Manager
Ranking in Document Management Software
4th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Content Management (8th), File Archiving (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Document Management Software category, the mindshare of CA View is 2.4%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Content Manager is 6.4%, down from 11.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Document Management Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Content Manager6.4%
CA View2.4%
Other91.2%
Document Management Software
 

Featured Reviews

it_user851850 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Platform Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Helps us secure viewing of customer accounts; scalability streamlines production of large reports
You can control who views what, as far as security is concerned, in viewing customer accounts. I'm not sure if that was available in the product at the beginning, but we use it extensively now. Also expandability. It's easy to add more space to it when you need and to. If you're producing large reports it's easy to increase so you can handle the new volume that may come along.
Maurice Riverso - PeerSpot reviewer
Records Management Officer at ANZPAA
Our our official repository and it has disposal management and retention management
The security architecture is the only problem as it's a little bit complex and too torturous at times. So it could be improved a little bit, but it is regarded as a very good system in Australia. It's probably overly subscribed. Also, what's missing is what people would like, which is basically online collaboration. That's a problem. But it has so many other things to offer that SharePoint, I'm sure, will not have. So, that will be an interesting issue to come up. It's not very good at providing stable and robust add-ins to Microsoft. That's a bit of a problem with Content Manager. They're kind of very volatile. So, that's been definitely something that could be improved.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I would suggest you strongly consider CA View and Deliver; take a big look at it, it's straightforward."
"We standardized our CIS log processing with CA View. We support a whole bunch of LPARs, about 80 or so. When we go to an LPAR, we know just where the CIS log is, it's in CA View, and we know how to get to it, we don't have to search around for it."
"It's easy to add more space to it when you need and to. If you're producing large reports it's easy to increase so you can handle the new volume that may come along."
"Drag and drop: With users having dual screens nowadays, this functionality is used a lot by staff and is also a good way to show people who are new to TRIM (HPE Content Manager) the simplicity of how things can be done."
"Go for it."
"I did not face issues with the product's scalability...The solution's technical support is good."
"HPE Content Manager provides organizations with a reliable system for managing massive amounts of information, in a structured, compliant and secure way, with a level of functionality and reliability that I have not seen matched by custom-built or other systems."
"It has a robust search but has often been difficult for people to learn."
"There many ways that this application has improved our organization. The most significant is the reduction in paper generation and the ability to electronically annotate and manage all our documents."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to search, sort and retrieve using metadata; in particular, the ability to create custom reports using the print merge functionality as per the requests that are issued from clients."
"The product can be integrated with different solutions."
 

Cons

"There was one customer we were trying convert over, and it was complicated. There were retention criteria which seemed a little more limited than with some of the other products."
"I believe they do probably have a GUI interface for the laptop, so you can just use the interface instead of the mainframe ISPF interface. I think that's already available but, if not, that would be my only issue."
"Users are intimidated by the Content Manager client application, especially when it comes to searching and managing content at an individual’s level."
"Many projects I've worked on encounter issues in production relating to load balancing and throttling where systems cannot cope with the volumes and capacity of transactional processing."
"Many users have expressed that it is too hard to find what they are looking for."
"Functionality gets removed as new versions are released."
"Pricing is an issue, as it is too expensive."
"Support could be enhanced. The first line of support consists of individuals who lack experience with some key aspects. When you create a support ticket, the time to resolve the issue may be prolonged because the first person may not understand the system or the solution."
"The ease of use should be addressed."
"We now have 2 proxies, 5 distribution servers and about 40 IDOL engines with tons of data on CEs. It is a scalable solution, but we see performance degradation and maintenance nightmares."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It requires other pieces of CA software and license keys, thing like that. That's one thing to keep in mind. It requires CA Common Services in order to actually be licensed to run on LPAR."
"The fees incurred are for the licensing and maintenance."
"I would suggest that you do a thorough evaluation of all competing products and look for support for these products in your local area."
"The solution's licensing cost depends on the customer domain. Though its costs are high, the product is worth the money. You have to pay a one-time cost and support costs."
"I rate the product price an eight or nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. The solution is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Document Management Software solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Government
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise8
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Content Manager?
Pricing is a disadvantage as it is very expensive, especially in this market.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Content Manager?
Pricing is an issue, as it is too expensive. Support and services need to be more user-friendly. The support has been slow, and there is room for improvement. Additionally, they could improve build...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Content Manager?
We are a system integrator. We deal with client requirements to determine the best solutions that should be deployed. Our primary use case for OpenText Content Manager is managing enterprise conten...
 

Also Known As

Unicenter CA-View Output Archival and Viewing
Micro Focus Content Manager, HPE Records Manager, HPE Content Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DHL, Intergrupo
Missouri State Courts
Find out what your peers are saying about CA View vs. OpenText Content Manager and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.