Acoustic Content (formerly IBM Watson Content Hub) vs Agility CMS

• It has a wide variety of built-in API calls.
• Building unique pages is simple and straightforward and requires only basic fundamental knowledge to get started.
• More advanced API calls can be developed simply.

Read full review

• The ability to use both WYSIWYG and HTML to format content on the website
• The ability to take a webpage down from public viewing, without deleting content

Read full review

• The organization of the application is poor and some elements could be more easily accessible not buried in menus.
• There is little to no community around the application and what does exist is out of date.
• Does not work well with our IBM applications as well as you would expect, which seems a common issue with IBM products.

Read full review

• Simplification of uploading files would be ideal - where all files are located in the Media & Documents section rather than uploaded directly to Shared Content modules. One home for all files helps us keep track of what is uploaded and what is not.
• Better copy/paste handling of content from external programs (cleaning Word document formatting, etc.), similar to handling by Word Press and other simplified CMS would be helpful.
• Greater control over global content such as headers/footers, multi-language implementation, etc., would allow our developers more flexibility and reduce our time coordinating with Agility support and using BOH.

Read full review

• Freed up user time to call a variety of applications quicker.
• Allowed developer an easier tool to integrate other applications for end users.
• Allowed us to have a single method of application implementation and usage that is easier to debug, saving time.

Read full review

• Decreased employee efficiency: I would like to be able to load word documents directly onto the website without having to tweak so many formatting issues

Read full review