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

Cloudinary vs OpenText Digital Asset Management comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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

Cloudinary
Ranking in Digital Asset Management
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
AI Content Creation (8th)
OpenText Digital Asset Mana...
Ranking in Digital Asset Management
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Digital Asset Management category, the mindshare of Cloudinary is 3.5%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Digital Asset Management is 4.3%, down from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Digital Asset Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cloudinary3.5%
OpenText Digital Asset Management4.3%
Other92.2%
Digital Asset Management
 

Featured Reviews

Azmir Uddin Alif - PeerSpot reviewer
Full-stack Developer at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
Reliable image hosting and storage improve organization but setup complexity challenges new users
Cloudinary is valuable for storing and hosting images, especially because it allows for easy storage and organization of media files. This feature is particularly useful when dealing with large amounts of images. Additionally, Cloudinary offers capabilities to create folders and organize images effectively under user-specific folders, which enhances usability for social media purposes.
YasserAli - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Presales Consultant at Merkle
This provides all-in-one media management for images and videos
The solution is not very user friendly, and if you're coming from a conventional enterprise content management background, there is a steep learning curve. I think it should make itself more discoverable to technical people and that includes the documentation which is lacking in terms of ease of use. I'd like to see some right to left languages as an additional feature. We have to integrate with third parties in order for Arabic to be recognized. It would make a big difference to have that included. It's something that a lot of the competitors are doing. OpenText is lagging in that regard. We're based in Egypt and unfortunately we're unable to implement the full functionality of the solution and get the best out of the product.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Cloudinary automatically optimizes the images for the browser, so instead of making a choice yourself for images like JPEG, PNG, AVIF, or WEBP, the client or end user's browser might support them, but Cloudinary takes that decision for you, and it just serves the right image or the best-optimized image, which is sort of safe."
"Unlike Firebase Storage, Cloudinary handles media-specific tasks like re-encoding uploads. For example, when users upload a video from an Apple device, it's often encoded in a proprietary Apple codec."
"I have not seen any bugs or breakdowns. The tool's performance when the site loads up is good."
"The platform has improved my projects by providing a fast and efficient way to manage images."
"I like its ease of implementation. I can easily call the API into my platform and use it to upload images from the machine to the server."
"Cloudinary will check for corrupted video or audio files and can re-encode them into different formats without much effort—you modify the URL, and it handles everything server-side."
"I can create folders in the Cloudinary interface using the front end, allowing me to store profile pictures, post pictures, cover pictures, and other media files."
"Cloudinary provides a free plan for developers wanting to get started or explore its capabilities."
"This is an all-in-one media solution in terms of media management."
"It enables you to deal more easily with videos, especially if you're working with a high volume that needs cutting and editing."
 

Cons

"For non-technical users, the initial setup could be made easier."
"The UI needs improvement because it has become quite messy recently, making it difficult to locate the media library and images."
"Looking at its credits, I think Cloudinary can be scalable. However, when you compare it to the AWS S3 bucket, you have more options for scalability with AWS."
"We decided to quit using Cloudinary after two years because we were getting a lot of users, and it was becoming expensive."
"It blocked our account, prevented us from uploading files, and showed a message about file adjustments."
"Cloudinary has a good user interface (UI), but there are some things the product can improve, like convenience."
"I believe there is some scope for improvement in areas like the dashboard, specifically the user dashboard and the browser where you can navigate the platform."
"The high price of the tool is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Could be more user-friendly."
"The solution is not very user friendly, and if you're coming from a conventional enterprise content management background, there is a steep learning curve."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"For us, the price is okay."
"I am using the free version."
"The solution’s pricing is moderate."
"I use the free plan, and that is enough for one or two websites. Though I felt that the product price is reasonable, I don't have any price details of any tools to help me make comparisons."
"If you are just starting out, the tool is actually free. You don't have to pay any fee, except if you have a large volume of files and documents you want to host."
"I have not used the product's paid subscription, as the free tier is sufficient for most users."
"The tool's pricing is very high."
"We decided to quit using Cloudinary after two years because we were getting a lot of users, and it was becoming expensive. Cloudinary had fixed charges, so if we agreed to pay 500 USD per month, it would be the same whether we used high or low resources. They would notify us if we exceeded our limit, but not if we used less—however, AWS charges according to usage, which became more cost-effective for us as we grew. With AWS, you might pay 100 one month and 200 the next, depending on your usage."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Digital Asset Management solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Construction Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
11%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cloudinary?
I did not research Cloudinary's pricing, as I am using it for free. In the free service, it performs well.
What needs improvement with Cloudinary?
The UI needs improvement because it has become quite messy recently, making it difficult to locate the media library and images. Additionally, the initial setup process is complex due to the numero...
What advice do you have for others considering Cloudinary?
I would advise new users to read the documentation thoroughly to understand how to upload and store images effectively. For those using Cloudinary for the first time, be prepared for a learning cur...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Marks & Spencer, Minneapolis Institute of Art, Argos, News UK, Rosetta Stone, Tarkett, DDR Corp., PBS
Find out what your peers are saying about Adobe, Box, Cloudinary and others in Digital Asset Management. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.