Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM FileNet vs M-Files 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

IBM FileNet
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
101
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Content Management (4th)
M-Files
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Document Management Software (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Content Management solutions, they serve different purposes. IBM FileNet is designed for Enterprise Content Management and holds a mindshare of 10.2%, up 9.6% compared to last year.
M-Files, on the other hand, focuses on Document Management Software, holds 9.2% mindshare, up 6.0% since last year.
Enterprise Content Management
Document Management Software
 

Featured Reviews

Emad Rizki - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
LN
Good workflows, and it is easy to use with a dashboard that improves contract visibility
My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing this product is to do a pilot first. After you do your research, do an actual pilot before you commit because everyone has nuances and you might find out that it is not what you want, or that it doesn't really do what you think it's going to do. It is not the simplest product to use but because of the robustness of its feature set in the ability with the workflows, and the APIs, to do just about anything you can imagine with it, that's very valuable. I wish it was a little easier to use because we have to spend more time than I'd like with new users, teaching them how it works. We try to hide all that from them but the setup time to get everything the way we wanted was probably two months. That is two months in one resource working on it half time a week, but it just took a lot of work to get the metadata set up, to get the workflows set up, and to get all the documents added to the repository. Now we've got versioning and we know where everything's at, the dashboard is great, but don't assume when they tell you that you'll be up and running in two weeks, that that is the truth. It takes much longer than you think. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature is the way in which it enables clients and customers to quickly access the content and information that they use for everyday functions."
"There are a lot of valuable features, but the biggest advantage is that this system is stable; it's always online, it always works... once it's configured and running, we don't need to touch it and constantly make changes to it. It's a low-maintenance platform."
"FileNet provides a compact solution for midsized companies."
"It has a straightforward approach to the install​."
"The standout feature for us is undoubtedly the Google-like search functionality, which allows us to search for documents within the system effortlessly. Instead of just querying the document database, this feature retrieves all relevant documents, akin to searching on the internet. It is very easy to use."
"Stability is really good. We fairly recently upgraded a version of it and have not been having any problems. The resources seem to be really good with this version; it is a little easier to troubleshoot issues."
"​It is very stable and reliable."
"It is used by large enterprises. It has to be scalable and robust for them to use. We have seen that on multiple projects over the years."
"Using M-Files means anybody on the executive team to go in and immediately look at a dashboard and know the status of a contract."
 

Cons

"I would say the installation process can be very complicated, and you need to to have an experience resource."
"I would like to see expanded search features, like content search."
"I think some of the technical pieces, when implementing it ourselves, were something of a roadblock until we discovered the Concierge. Those are some things they have to work on."
"It could be simpler to use, considering multiple use cases."
"The initial setup is complex. It is complex because there are several pieces of software that have to be installed in the right order to make it work alright."
"If I had a concern, it would be that we are sometimes not getting to the root cause of the issues from a technical standpoint as quickly as we should. For the most part, it's good. However, when things get a bit dicey with more involved issues, we have had some delays in getting feedback. If I had a concern, it's around the technical support and their responses in regards to things like root cause analysis."
"I would like to have more governance features with more supervisory layers."
"It would be nice if they could make it like containers are working in Kubernetes to auto-scale based on demand."
"The integration with other products needs to be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Talking about the cost is difficult because IBM has offers that combine different products, and each of these offers has different types of licensing. IBM also has a policy that the actual price for a given customer may be very different from the stated book price. It's hard to say whether it's expensive or not."
"The licensing cost of FileNet is comparable."
"FileNet is not cheap, but you absolutely get what you pay for. ​"
"Licensing costs depend on the size of the storage."
"It is still a leading ECM solution provider, however the cost to implement and maintain are higher than other solutions."
"My customers have seen ROI. There have been productivity gains, time savings gains, and things that they have been doing much more efficiently in a more modern way than they were before."
"​There are lots of components to the product. Make sure before you invest that you know which components you need.​​"
"The tool is expensive, and I rate its pricing a ten out of ten."
"They have an Optical Character Scanning module but we didn't buy it because it's ridiculously expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Content Management solutions are best for your needs.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
10%
Insurance Company
10%
Educational Organization
13%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
 

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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM FileNet?
The product has become more expensive and requires significant investment for enterprise solutions.
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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Suncorp Group Limited, St. Vincent Health, Citigroup, SRCSD, and UK Dept for Work and Pensions.
Crowe UK, Stearns Bank, Head Energy, OMV, TK Elevator
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, OpenText, IBM and others in Enterprise Content Management. Updated: May 2025.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.