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 building partnerships.
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.
Support could be enhanced. The first line of support consists of individuals who lack experience with some key aspects. When you create a support ticket, the time to resolve the issue may be prolonged because the first person may not understand the system or the solution.
Consultant at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Consultant
Oct 30, 2023
There could be an improvement in security and permission infrastructure, which is very complicated. Most of our build governance and security is set at the group or department level. Setting that up and the efforts required for management or information architecture are very high-level. Setting up information architecture is much quicker and easier in SharePoint than in OpenText. Compared to SharePoint, OpenText is a bit more secure, but I agree that SharePoint is better from a maintenance point of view. Also, the solution could be more user-friendly. OpenText Content Manager is tightly coupled, using Java-oriented applications at its server site. However, other applications like SharePoint are moving to Angular, providing a proper front-end stack. This allows development on the front-end side without requiring server-side implementation, resulting in a decoupled front-end. OpenText Content Manager, on the other hand, is still mainly using transcripts.
Director at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Oct 25, 2021
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. Mobility, as it relates to the ability to have access, should also be addressed.
OpenText Content Manager delivers comprehensive document and information management with advanced security and retention functionalities.OpenText Content Manager is a key player in enterprise content and records management. By integrating well with tools like SharePoint and Microsoft Office, it supports metadata search, audit trails, and document lifecycle management. Its drag-and-drop functionality aids in managing both paper and electronic records efficiently. Compliance with standards,...
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 building partnerships.
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.
Support could be enhanced. The first line of support consists of individuals who lack experience with some key aspects. When you create a support ticket, the time to resolve the issue may be prolonged because the first person may not understand the system or the solution.
OpenText Content Manager needs to improve its user interface. Its installation process is difficult and can be made easier.
The stability of the solution is an area of concern where improvements can be made.
There could be an improvement in security and permission infrastructure, which is very complicated. Most of our build governance and security is set at the group or department level. Setting that up and the efforts required for management or information architecture are very high-level. Setting up information architecture is much quicker and easier in SharePoint than in OpenText. Compared to SharePoint, OpenText is a bit more secure, but I agree that SharePoint is better from a maintenance point of view. Also, the solution could be more user-friendly. OpenText Content Manager is tightly coupled, using Java-oriented applications at its server site. However, other applications like SharePoint are moving to Angular, providing a proper front-end stack. This allows development on the front-end side without requiring server-side implementation, resulting in a decoupled front-end. OpenText Content Manager, on the other hand, is still mainly using transcripts.
The product could improve its scalability.
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. Mobility, as it relates to the ability to have access, should also be addressed.
This is a client-side app, and a web-based app would be easier to support. Easier integration with SharePoint and other apps would be an improvement.