Acoustic Content (formerly IBM Watson Content Hub) vs Movable Type

• 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

• Easy to use straight out of the box, very user friendly with an intuitive interface.
• Great for team use where there are multiple editors and writers fixing and editing each other's works. It's easy to track who last made the latest edits.
• Stellar support team and system. I've found that Moveable Type's support system is generally more responsive and helpful than WordPress.

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

• Especially on the older versions, the limited number of well-developed third-party plugins is problematic for efficiently developing a well-functioning website.
• Versions of movable type which didn't allow pages to be constructed were difficult to create continuity in design and easily editable pages for our editors.
• The installation process could be simplified to make it easier for those new to a CMS to install.

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

• Provided a blogging platform when we needed one.
• Helped us compare other blogging platforms as a baseline for what minimums we require and what we don't want.
• Users often refused to use Movable Type and would go around our official system in order to use my more friendly software.

Read full review