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

Nuxeo 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

Nuxeo
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Digital Asset Management (8th)
OpenText Content Manager
Ranking in Enterprise Content Management
8th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
File Archiving (3rd), Document Management Software (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Enterprise Content Management category, the mindshare of Nuxeo is 2.7%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Content Manager is 3.9%, down from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Content Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Content Manager3.9%
Nuxeo2.7%
Other93.4%
Enterprise Content Management
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2650419 - PeerSpot reviewer
Customer Success Manager at a tech company with 51-200 employees
Powerful data model building enables comprehensive document management for government sectors
The learning curve in Nuxeo is not easy, and it requires additional time. It's challenging to onboard new users or new developers. The resources on Hyland are good but lack exercises and use cases to apply by oneself during learning. There is not much practice to apply that knowledge directly on Nuxeo and get further details into the platform.
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

"Nuxeo content management engine is powerful and can be adjusted to any need (user interface, document types, automations, workflows)."
"Nuxeo is very powerful in terms of building up the data model and the context model."
"The product can be integrated with different solutions."
"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."
"An advantage is integration with your IP directory."
"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."
"This creates a more sustainable, competitive, government compliant, and secure solution in the long term which pays off on the investment."
"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."
"The most valuable features of OpenText Content Manager are its stability, reliability, security, and workflow engine."
"Eliminated the need for paper records."
 

Cons

"The learning curve in Nuxeo is not easy, and it requires additional time. It's challenging to onboard new users or new developers."
"Pricing is too high. Nuxeo Studio has a fixed price, no matter the number of active users is."
"Users are intimidated by the Content Manager client application, especially when it comes to searching and managing content at an individual’s level."
"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."
"We've had it for a year now, and since we started implementation it has been, to say softly, a nightmare."
"The system is difficult to navigate and understand the full scope of functionality available for end users to appreciate the value."
"Many users have expressed that it is too hard to find what they are looking for."
"This web client requires more refinement to be viable as a desktop client replacement."
"Pricing is an issue, as it is too expensive."
"I would like to see an improvement in the licensing process. It is very complicated and it seems to involve many different people throughout the entire process."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The fees incurred are for the licensing and maintenance."
"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."
"I would suggest that you do a thorough evaluation of all competing products and look for support for these products in your local area."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Content Management solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Comms Service Provider
15%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
University
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

What needs improvement with Nuxeo?
The learning curve in Nuxeo is not easy, and it requires additional time. It's challenging to onboard new users or new developers. The resources on Hyland are good but lack exercises and use cases ...
What is your primary use case for Nuxeo?
We are mainly using Nuxeo for the government sector, and we are providing document management for those government sectors and universities. So, the main use cases are for government and universities.
What advice do you have for others considering Nuxeo?
The overall rating for Nuxeo is eight out of ten. My advice would be to consider sector and customer requirements carefully when choosing a platform.
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

No data available
Micro Focus Content Manager, HPE Records Manager, HPE Content Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Electronic Arts, Jeppesen, U.S. Navy, Orange, GSD&M, Sirona Dental, Skyscanner, Verizon, Unizin, Enernoc, NHS
Missouri State Courts
Find out what your peers are saying about Nuxeo vs. OpenText Content Manager and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.