FileCloud vs Microsoft Office SharePoint Server comparison

"The granularity for the audit log in FileCloud is extremely valuable."

"Microsoft Office SharePoint Server helps with return on investment as it saves a lot of time and helps clients improve their processes."

"The Microsoft Office SharePoint Server is a main feature of Microsoft, and I use it for everything I share inside the organization and outside the organization; it's easy to use, easy to share, and easy to manage all SharePoint services."

"The implementation and configuring of the resolution are very easy in the online version."

"The best features of Microsoft Office SharePoint Server are the integration between SharePoint, OneDrive, Microsoft Teams, and email."

"The features for low-code and no-code capabilities in Microsoft Office SharePoint Server are among the best, which are very user-friendly and not seen in any other cloud services, such as S3 from AWS and blob storage from Azure."

"The solution's most valuable aspects are its collaboration capabilities, its communications site and the innovation within the product itself."

"Microsoft Office SharePoint Server's document management significantly improves collaboration within my organization."

"The forms aspect of the solution, for example, the creation of surveys, is its most valuable aspect."

"Currently, FileCloud's compatibility for Linux implementation is limited to only Ubuntu or Red Hat Enterprise Server."

"The solution needs to be more collaborative. I believe they are just coming up with the themes for this right now."

"The solution needs to have more flexibility. The classic version had more flexibility, however, the modern version has many more limitations."

"I would like to see more Agile techniques and seamless integration with other applications."

"The permission management features need improvement."

"This solution is not very stable. It is useful to arrange data but it's not the best for big data. Sometimes we have issues with our reports as a result."

"The product is behind in development and lacks some features."

"The ability to preview files in different formats should be expanded to include formats such as embedded postscript (EPS), AutoCAD, and Adobe Acrobat PDF."

"The solution needs to enable better sharing capabilities between users and external users. Several users also have problems with linking their emails to their Microsoft account."

"There are some aggressive discounts offered by Microsoft for organizations that are not for profit, which we are, and it makes it quite attractive to consider."

"It can be expensive for on-premises deployments, especially when you have to support SQL Server as your backend database. That's where the cost comes into play. SQL Server has its own licensing, which Microsoft keeps on changing. Therefore, it can become costly. In the earlier versions of SharePoint, version 2007 or 2010, they had an express version where the SQL Server licensing was free. It wasn't like a full-blown SharePoint. It was only a slimmed-down version. It used to be whatever your hardware costs. You would install the free software and work with it, but you were very limited in what you could do in SharePoint. If you wanted the SharePoint Enterprise Server with all the bells and whistles, then you had to pay more to get the SQL Server license based on the number of users or servers. The subscription model is different for cloud deployments. Licensing is per user and per month. The cost also depends on the storage required. If you have a lot of sites or documents, then you need to expand it based on your needs."

"One of the reasons why we don't recommend the cloud version of SharePoint is the cost. With the on premise version, you pay for the license once. For the cloud version, there is a recurring fee. It is very expensive. They expect everyone to pay $20 or $30 per user per month."

"Pricing plans may be flexible depending on volume usage and your corporate relationship with Microsoft."