Acoustic Content vs. SiteExecutive

We can organize all our content easily by uploading content files and other digital assets. CMS smart AI generates metadata by tagging them automatically which helps us to sort our content into different categories. CMS content modeling feature helps us to visualize our content structure, assemble them in an intelligent manner and reuse the content whenever we want to for different purposes.

We recently put our alumni magazine online so viewers can read it digitally. SiteExecutive has been great for this project as it allowed us to easily create new templates and styling options specifically suited for our purposes.

• Creating separate pages is easy and straightforward and only requires basic basic knowledge to get started
• Advanced API calls can be easily built.

• SiteExecutive provides a simple basic and convenient interface for creating and updating webpages.
• Easy way to create web forms, set up a confirmation webpage, and send a confirmation email.
• Integration with YouTube allows us to quickly embed the most recent videos to our website automactically as well as choose specific videos by date or title.

• 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• There is little to no community around the application and what does exist is out of date.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.

• Glitches happen more frequently than I'd like them to
• Limited options for formatting and organization within blog applications

Acoustic Content stands out mainly in 3 areas, Digital Asset Management system AI Based metatags More secure CDN and REST API to share content All these three features play a huge role in Acoustic Content CMS in terms of finding matching images for our content, categorize and sort our content automatically and finally secure way to publish our content.

WordPress is another CMS that I've used within a professional setting. Despite the cost difference, SiteExecutive is well worth the investment. Its functionality is much, much greater (they can't really be compared on the same level) and I have more freedom for customization and creating EXACTLY what I need.

• 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.

• External constituents are able to clearly see our mission, goals, and programs (i.e: we are successfully attracting potential students and their families)
• Faculty and staff are able to be directly involved in how their department is represented