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
2nd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Content Management (10th), Document Management Software (5th)
OpenText Information Archive
Ranking in File Archiving
3rd
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 September 2026, in the File Archiving category, the mindshare of OpenText Content Manager is 6.8%, up from 4.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Information Archive is 6.6%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
File Archiving Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Content Manager6.8%
OpenText Information Archive6.6%
Other86.6%
File Archiving
 

Featured Reviews

AH
Enterprise Information Manager in Practice at Mannai
Improved content management with good reliability and an easy setup
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 content, such as documents and emails, as well as engineering document management OpenText Content Manager…
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

"Customer Service: We appreciate HPE's team of resources, who assist us as issues arise."
"Eliminated the need for paper records."
"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."
"I did not face issues with the product's scalability...The solution's technical support is good."
"The product can be integrated with different solutions."
"This is a wonderful product with many options."
"For a records management system, Content Manager is a really good system."
"Drag and drop: With users having dual screens nowadays, this functionality is used a lot by staff and is also a good way to show people who are new to TRIM (HPE Content Manager) the simplicity of how things can be done."
"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."
"It is very stable."
 

Cons

"The system is difficult to navigate and understand the full scope of functionality available for end users to appreciate the value."
"The stability of the solution is an area of concern where improvements can be made."
"This system eats up a lot of staff time for support, administration, and use."
"The product could improve its scalability."
"It's not very good at providing stable and robust add-ins to Microsoft."
"The ease of use should be addressed."
"The ease of use should be addressed. If one is skillful then this will not present a problem, but a person who is not will be forced to struggle."
"This web client requires more refinement to be viable as a desktop client replacement."
"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

"I would suggest that you do a thorough evaluation of all competing products and look for support for these products in your local area."
"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."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File Archiving solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
12%
Manufacturing Company
12%
 

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

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...
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.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.