What users are saying about

Adobe Experience Manager

Top Rated
147 Ratings

Crownpeak DXM

4 Ratings

Adobe Experience Manager

Top Rated
147 Ratings
Score 8 out of 101

Crownpeak DXM

4 Ratings
Score 7 out of 101

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

Adobe Experience Manager

It is very well suited for large websites and clients with multiple properties where some data is shared. I would not recommend it for smaller websites as the overheard would be too much for small clients and basic websites.
Mike Plant profile photo

Crownpeak DXM

Are you ok having extra people manually categorize content and update most things by hand?
No photo available

Feature Rating Comparison

Security

Adobe Experience Manager
8.1
Crownpeak DXM
Role-based user permissions
Adobe Experience Manager
8.1
Crownpeak DXM

Platform & Infrastructure

Adobe Experience Manager
7.7
Crownpeak DXM
API
Adobe Experience Manager
7.5
Crownpeak DXM
Internationalization / multi-language
Adobe Experience Manager
7.9
Crownpeak DXM

Web Content Creation

Adobe Experience Manager
7.1
Crownpeak DXM
WYSIWYG editor
Adobe Experience Manager
8.3
Crownpeak DXM
Code quality / cleanliness
Adobe Experience Manager
6.9
Crownpeak DXM
Admin section
Adobe Experience Manager
7.2
Crownpeak DXM
Page templates
Adobe Experience Manager
6.9
Crownpeak DXM
Library of website themes
Adobe Experience Manager
5.8
Crownpeak DXM
Mobile optimization / responsive design
Adobe Experience Manager
8.0
Crownpeak DXM
Publishing workflow
Adobe Experience Manager
7.8
Crownpeak DXM
Form generator
Adobe Experience Manager
6.0
Crownpeak DXM

Web Content Management

Adobe Experience Manager
6.3
Crownpeak DXM
Content taxonomy
Adobe Experience Manager
7.2
Crownpeak DXM
SEO support
Adobe Experience Manager
6.9
Crownpeak DXM
Bulk management
Adobe Experience Manager
5.4
Crownpeak DXM
Availability / breadth of extensions
Adobe Experience Manager
6.5
Crownpeak DXM
Community / comment management
Adobe Experience Manager
5.3
Crownpeak DXM

Pros

  • Media library and asset management is simplified, separating storage and also allowing developers to manage the workflow of the publishing process.
  • No addition of API services are required, using the same requests and data access layer for both front end and back end development simplifies the project lifecycle.
  • Duplicating code is easy, developers can simply copy components and reuse or rework for each use case.
Mike Plant profile photo
  • Hosting simple article pages and images
No photo available

Cons

  • Styling the front-end of the author interface can sometimes be challenging. Built in styles and HTML can be overwhelming until you get used to it. Having a less intrusive author output or defining a standard output per site could speed development.
  • Documentation is often outdated, keeping docs up to date and readily available is needed.
  • The local build process is slow and takes a lot of space. Reducing the overhead with local testing would be great!
Mike Plant profile photo
  • The development environment is sub-par. It's difficult to create any type of "application" as the format of page templates is not suited for compile-time checks, cross classes, and many .NET libraries are excluded. You cannot use modern development techniques such as SASS for CSS, nor does their system minify or bundle JavaScript or CSS. There is no place for a standard relational database so creating "category" pages of related content is difficult. There is no source control integration. Again. No source control history or usage whatsoever. Also, a real difficulty in development is the code-deploy-wait model used - it's similar to SharePoint in that a developer makes a change to a template, saves, and then needs to "deploy" that change to another server to view it. The deployment usually takes from seconds to minutes. This makes development take a lot longer than other platforms where the feedback is more immediate.
  • The content creation user experience is very confusing. For instance, there is a "new" menu for creating content but the developers control of that is limited and end users often get lost in a large development template folder looking for the "right" template to use. Other content creation systems like Wordpress are a lot more intuitive.
  • The documentation and online forum are particularly lacking. The documentation does not have many examples and the forum is extremely cumbersome and limited. Most of the "help" documentation is sideways Powerpoints. CrownPeak makes up for this with their support email system - they respond very quickly - but it's very hard to look up anything for yourself.
No photo available

Likelihood to Renew

Adobe Experience Manager9.0
Based on 5 answers
We had and still have a fantastic experience using Adobe CQ. Lots of flexibility, great integration with other Adobe products we already use and a powerful technology make it a great fit for our corporate environment. Also as the community grows, it makes it easier to network with other developers and users to get new ideas on how to continue to get the best out of the software.
Fernando Galeano profile photo
Crownpeak DXM5.0
Based on 1 answer
No answer on this topic is available.

Usability

Adobe Experience Manager10.0
Based on 2 answers
I personally feel that AEM is very intuitive to use from an authoring standpoint. The entire CMS was engineered around the author. Everything about AEM is geared to helping authors generate and maintain content. There are ways that tool tips can be customized so that any individual could simply hover over and be guided step by step on how to author web content
Vagner Polund profile photo
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Support

Adobe Experience Manager9.0
Based on 1 answer
Its so far the best Content Management System, available in market.
No photo available
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Implementation

Adobe Experience Manager8.7
Based on 2 answers
Depending on your individual needs, It is really quite simple to create an authoring experience for a website that looks really good. I have been part of many implementations and many teams and have seen many projects that were super successful and others that were not implemented well. AEM has room for a lot of flexibility in the implementation process compared to other CMS like SharePoint
Vagner Polund profile photo
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Alternatives Considered

We selected Adobe CQ mostly for the ease of page authoring in brought to our non-technical staff. Powerful and simple UI widgets made it very simple for our merchandiser to create, edit and publish new pages. It also allowed us to customize those widgets to fit their needs while keeping the same clean experience. We also saw a plus in the ability to run activation workflows based on our own organization hierarchy, which helped make sure the right pages were exposed to the right eyes before going live. Overall, it was the mixture of user-friendliness of the authoring interface with the robustness of the technology stack that convinced us to go with CQ.
Fernando Galeano profile photo
No photo available

Return on Investment

  • AEM has allowed our team to promote high value webinars and passes contact data to our marketing automation tool for a syncronized experience.
  • AEM allows for a work stream and multiple authors for quickly publishing thought leadership articles.
  • From blogs to home screens, AEM allows us to build for many types of marketing projects.
No photo available
No answers on this topic

Pricing Details

Adobe Experience Manager

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details

Adobe Experience Manager More Information

Crownpeak DXM

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details

Crownpeak DXM More Information