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

OpenText Content Manager vs OpenText Information Archive 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

OpenText Content Manager
Ranking in File Archiving
3rd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Content Management (13th), Document Management Software (5th)
OpenText Information Archive
Ranking in File Archiving
2nd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the File Archiving category, the mindshare of OpenText Content Manager is 7.2%, up from 4.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Information Archive is 6.8%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
File Archiving Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Information Archive6.8%
OpenText Content Manager7.2%
Other86.0%
File Archiving
 

Featured Reviews

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.
reviewer2594589 - PeerSpot reviewer
ECM Delivery Manager at a university with 11-50 employees
Have integrated diverse content sources and reduced legacy system costs through structured archiving
There is still a belief that OpenText, of course improving as every other vendor does, could see a little bit more improvement in AI involvement and scenarios. It is good in small scope, but improvement for large scope as well would be valuable. This is something that is missed a little bit. Otherwise, it is evolving quite well and still on top of the market. The most critical part regarding OpenText Information Archive is that OpenText is very strong, but the current packaging is already offering very strong capabilities in the smallest package. Of course, the price corresponds to the capabilities. Some customers would prefer to have fewer capabilities for a more affordable price. This is generally true for every single vendor of this kind. For big customers who have big requirements for the largest enterprises, it is reasonable. However, it really cuts out the companies which are at the edge between medium business and enterprises because those are maybe not looking for so advanced solutions from the functionality perspective.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We are required to have a robust Records Management system, and it does this job."
"It has a robust search but has often been difficult for people to learn."
"Eliminated the need for paper records."
"The most valuable features of OpenText Content Manager are its stability, reliability, security, and workflow engine."
"This creates a more sustainable, competitive, government compliant, and secure solution in the long term which pays off on the investment."
"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."
"The product is valuable generally due to its wide use and acceptance in the public sector in my region."
"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."
"It is very stable."
"It has a strong XML engine for reading data and making it indexed and searchable."
"The best feature found in OpenText Information Archive is the complexity it covers, which means you can use almost any kind of data by integrating it with the original source and easily doing that into a unified content management system."
 

Cons

"Many users have expressed that it is too hard to find what they are looking for."
"The ease of use should be addressed."
"The stability of the solution is an area of concern where improvements can be made."
"This web client requires more refinement to be viable as a desktop client replacement."
"This system eats up a lot of staff time for support, administration, and use."
"We have not yet utilized the web version, as we encountered a few issues during testing."
"The system is difficult to navigate and understand the full scope of functionality available for end users to appreciate the value."
"It's not very good at providing stable and robust add-ins to Microsoft."
"It requires a decent amount of XL mapping."
"Some customers would prefer to have fewer capabilities for a more affordable price."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The fees incurred are for the licensing and maintenance."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File Archiving solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Pharma/Biotech Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise8
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with OpenText InfoArchive?
There is still a belief that OpenText, of course improving as every other vendor does, could see a little bit more improvement in AI involvement and scenarios. It is good in small scope, but improv...
What is your primary use case for OpenText InfoArchive?
OpenText Information Archive is basically used for decommissioning purposes. When organizations would like to have access to all data, particularly during new content platform implementation, they ...
What advice do you have for others considering OpenText InfoArchive?
The organization is currently working with OpenText products mainly. In the organization, another team is working with IBM as well, but more focus is on OpenText currently. The organization works w...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Missouri State Courts
BMO Harris Bank, Pacific Life Insurance Company, China CITIC Bank International Limited, Techint Group, Agility, Lahey Health
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Content Manager vs. OpenText Information Archive and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.