IBM FileNet vs Laserfiche comparison

IBM and Laserfiche are both solutions in the Enterprise Content Management category. IBM is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0, while Laserfiche is ranked #21. IBM holds a 10.5% mindshare in ECM, compared to Laserfiche’s 1.2% mindshare. Additionally, 91% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Laserfiche users who would recommend it.

IBM FileNet

Read 101 IBM FileNet reviews

3,501 Views
2,225 Comparison Views

91% willing to recommend

Laserfiche

Read 1 Laserfiche review

303 Views
200 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

IBM FileNet

Laserfiche

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between IBM FileNet and Laserfiche based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, OpenText, IBM and others in Enterprise Content Management.

To learn more, read our detailed Enterprise Content Management Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Enterprise Content Management

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 845,406 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

IBM FileNet

Ranking in Enterprise Content Management

4th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

101

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Laserfiche

Ranking in Enterprise Content Management

21st

Average Rating

10.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Document Management Software (12th)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Enterprise Content Management category, the mindshare of IBM FileNet is 10.5%, up from 9.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Laserfiche is 1.2%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Enterprise Content Management

Featured Reviews

Emad Rizki

System integrator at Indépendant

Facilitates seamless integration for large enterprises with strong deployment capabilities

FileNet was scalable and could be implemented into big multinational organizations. However, it has become very expensive recently. Compared to low-code solutions such as Appian and outsystems, FileNet has gaps, mainly because it requires coding, which is not preferred by clients due to pricing concerns in Pakistan. We transitioned clients to cloud solutions, although FileNet has been strongly integrated with on-prem deployments.

Read full review

Christian Begaux

Consultant DMS/ECM at NSI IT Software & Services (Cegeka Group)

A powerful solution that offers BPM and automation to assist with our digital transformation

We use this solution for DMS, ECM, scan and imaging, plus workflows and forms solutions spread over the entire company This is a very complete and powerful solution. No code: We can address all of the features and functionalities with computer-minded people without having to call the IT Dept or…

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 ability to manage the content well."

"For a large company, for the robustness, stability, performance, and the growth — that you can grow it within seconds — I would advise using FileNet, without any doubt."

"It has improved my organization by how we release documents, claims, and policies."

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

"The key way that this product has improved the way that that our business functions is by its stability. Its ability to remain up despite other pressures, its consistency, and lack of downtime are really the greatest things that it brings."

"IBM FileNet has improved our organization with its single collaboration space."

"I like the security and also the configuration. It is easy to configure and most of our business use cases have everything just with the configuration itself."

"I would say the workflow is pretty good. Also, the flexibility of being able to create custom objects with a lot of domain-specific attributes that we follow."

More IBM FileNet pros

"This is a very complete and powerful solution."

Cons

"The analytics in FileNet are too complicated and they consume too much infrastructure, memory, and CPU. They're too expensive to work with."

"The usability is fair. It could be a bit better. It could be better designed. They could put more effort into the user experience and do a better job of integrating other components, like Datacap, to be a bit more seamless."

"In terms of functionality, what customers might be looking for is a little more in terms of native-records retention. Records Management is an add-on product. If there were just a little more of that built into the core functionality, that would be helpful."

"In Content Navigator we want to see the ability to view different types of video... We are using HTML 5 but it's very limited... We definitely want to see support for most types of video formats in the market."

"It would be nice to have additional integration features, which could be integration with IoOT-based products and solutions that also have automation requirements on the IOT side. Anything can be integrated from a Gateway or API perspective would be a plus."

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

"I would say the installation process can be very complicated, and you need to to have an experience resource."

"IBM has a lot of documentation but the kind of information in a lot of the documents can be confusing to our clients. It would be easier if they used video tutorials. Right now, the information is too hard to understand, and there is a lot of it. If they used videos I think FinalNet would be easy to use for an end-user."

More IBM FileNet cons

"We would like to see more features for RPA and AI."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"IBM FileNet is an expensive solution."

"For the medium scale or large scale, I would recommend FileNet. FileNet is free of licensing expenses, thus good for the money. It is not expensive, but worth for the money, especially for medium scale and large scale industries."

"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 not cheap, but you absolutely get what you pay for. "

"The cost is about $40,000, plus yearly maintenance."

"The tool is expensive, and I rate its pricing a ten out of ten."

"We use extraction. Therefore, we can see 80 to 85 percent accuracy on data extraction. This reduces the manual indexing part, which is definitely a gain on performance efficiency."

More IBM FileNet pricing and cost advice

Information not available

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

845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

23%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

10%

Insurance Company

Educational Organization

28%

Government

17%

Financial Services Firm

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

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?

The product has become more expensive and requires significant investment for enterprise solutions.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM FileNet?

FileNet needs improvement in pricing as it has become very expensive. Also, in comparison to local solutions, the need for coding is a disadvantage.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

OpenText Extended ECM vs IBM FileNet

Compared 17% of the time

SharePoint vs IBM FileNet

Compared 16% of the time

OpenText Documentum vs IBM FileNet

Compared 16% of the time

Hyland OnBase vs IBM FileNet

Compared 9% of the time

More IBM FileNet Competitors

OpenText Documentum vs Laserfiche

Compared 37% of the time

SharePoint vs Laserfiche

Compared 35% of the time

Microsoft Purview Records Management vs Laserfiche

Compared 14% of the time

More Laserfiche Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM FileNet

March 2025

Download IBM FileNet product report

Buyer's Guide

Enterprise Content Management

March 2025

Download Laserfiche product report

Overview

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

Powerful Document Management Software and Agile Enterprise Content Management Solutions

Laserfiche

Sample Customers

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

D.L. Evans, College of the Desert, Community Action, Tompkins County, Hanson McClain, Olmsted County, Old Line Bank, Steinhafels, CIRCOR Pibiviesse

Buyer's Guide

Enterprise Content Management

March 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, OpenText, IBM and others in Enterprise Content Management. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.