Acoustic Content (formerly IBM Watson Content Hub) vs CommonSpot

• 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

• I think CommonSpot's greatest strength is its ease of use. It's relatively intuitive in it's usage, so it therefore makes it easy to train new people to use it.
• Within my usage of it, our options were limited, which again added to it's ease of use.

Read full review

• It doesn't work well with our IBM systems and as you might expect, that seems to be a common problem with IBM products.
• Application settings are bad and some items are easily accessible and can be buried in menus

Read full review

• Commonspot needs to improve on its authoring feature. It is impossible to author on more than one page at a time . (One must always click on "View work on all changes") before switching between pages otherwise, the changes will not be saved.
• CommonSpot does not support sharing the definition of any custom element or any template layouts. Therefore, one must recreate these in each site.
• In Commonspot, a user who has to manage content in multiple sites will have to log in to each site to see and act on any actions.

Read full review

• Approved developer is a simple tool for integrating other end-user applications.
• It has allowed us to have one-stop-shop and easy-to-use debugging, saving time.

Read full review

• I was working in a religious institution and based upon our usage and audience, there was no ROI to speak of. Our usage was more for providing information than having any type of interaction. In that instance, it worked very well.

Read full review