Alfresco vs. MS SharePoint / SQL

Easy integration with the external APIs Workflows can be invoked via REST call Wonderful swagger documentation for process REST APIs REST, MULE, CAMEL, Google Drive, and Box features are available with Alfresco Process Services The micro-service version deployment should be well documented and needs improvement

Incentivized

A simple and important scenario well suited is that you can configure alerts to notify you when the production server fails. another best feature is the report server is the central component of reporting services. For me something less appropriate is that the admin must ensure optimal performance for farm operations, they recommend that you install SQL Server on a dedicated server that does not run other farm roles and does not host databases for other applications.

Incentivized

• Basic workflows are easy enough for casual users to set up and utilize.
• Cloud sync capability provides a great way to share documents with third parties and to use as a backup system for critical documents.
• Alfresco mobile app makes it easy for those on the road to access, approve and share documents.
• Folder rules are easy to set up and make assignment of metadata easier to automate.

Incentivized

• Flexible - able to make any changes we would like vs traditional service desk system.
• ROI - We were already using SharePoint for internal intranet, so we are simply getting more use out of licensing we had already committed to.
• Easy to use for end users.

Incentivized

• Alfresco Process Services and Alfresco Application Development Framework integration makes for best functionality/application of ECM.
• Use case alignment - Marketing content and documentation of specific business requirements and user stories being available as reference material/documentation.
• Integration with multiple silos for content.

Incentivized

• It is hard to setup and nightmare
• It requires a of infrastructure, thus it could be costly because of requirement and licensing required for everything to run smoothly
• If it is not setup and organized properly from the beginning it could be maintenance nightmare
• It is hard to have "test" environment to do patches or similar

Incentivized

As per the current market and the line of products that are available for content and document management system, Alfresco is a very good option compared to other systems in terms of features and cost. Plus the community support is great. Also since the product is open source, it can be extended or understood in a better way.

Incentivized

This was a long-term buy-in from a corporate perspective, to remain in the SharePoint space. Migration is certainly possible, which is good for planning and having options further out. At this point, the only planned migration is to eventually move the architecture up to SharePoint/SQL 2013. At that point, we will be able to leverage some greater efficiencies, some enhanced content design and management features, and some more current social features. It is well worth a full consideration in any shop looking at a new implementation of or migration to SharePoint (although you will probably be considering 2013 versions or beyond in those discussions), but the platform should be a strong competitor to any alternatives. Realizing the capability of a fully-branded and customized website was not part of the original choice for the architecture at Lincoln, but seeing it implemented and functioning now with this capacity far beyond original expectations has certainly cemented plans to continue using it.

Alfresco Content Services' UI has never been its strength from the beginning. Therefore, rating it from a usability standpoint, I will not rank it high. However, Alfresco Content Services can easily be integrated with any application and leveraged as a backend CMS or DM system. With the new Angular-based UI approach, it's very much possible to create custom UI on top of it as required.

Incentivized

SharePoint is very complex. This makes usability somewhat difficult from an IT perspective. An IT generalist will be able to pick it up and run with basic tasks. More customized functions would require significant specialized training and therefore limit what a standard user would be able to achieve. From an end user perspective, it's pretty straightforward to use.

Incentivized

I am not big fan of Alfresco Content Services' support; it works on its own speed and sometimes it becomes challenging to achieve business needs. However, I appreciate regular delivery of security patches and updates

Incentivized

It's been fantastic in terms of Premier Support so far. If there is an issue and if you report if the product has an issue, they will act upon it immediately. In some cases, if you design/develop something using the platform, Microsoft appreciates it and... publishes it on their public website. But you have to wait for some time if it is a non-Premier Support issue as you may experience delays.

Process was relatively smooth and overall, downtime minimal. MSI was very responsive to our needs and made the transition easier than it otherwise might have been.

Incentivized

Not implemented in best practice way, there are many customizations

All software has some pros and some cons. Alfresco has some good pluses, and suits our environment very well. It fit perfectly in the place that we are working on. That is why we decided to go with this software. Overall, the kind of content management that needs to be done in an organization is what would determine which software to use.

Incentivized

At the time of the two large projects, SharePoint was the enterprise solution so we were required to use that. We have since lobbied the enterprise teams to review and consider Atlassian Confluence and were successful. Confluence is cheaper than Sharepoint which is why we wanted to bring that in. The enterprise has now made Confluence an enterprise solution as an alternative to SharePoint. After using both I think SharePoint has many more add-ins than Confluence. It has much more customization ability than Confluence. SharePoint is not good for mobile readiness. Confluence is so there is a difference that might lead you to Confluence over SharePoint. I would also say that SharePoint is very document-centric and that Confluence has better KM than SharePoint does. even with the use of SQL Server. We were told that we could not use Google Drive even though it had features we liked.

Incentivized

• Instant document lookup - No paper files to mail which saves in all areas of postage, truck delivery, physical storage warehouse space, printing, etc
• No longer losing important documents - Previously with paper files things would go missing and those could be costly reports/assessments.
• Ability to secure documents and provide access to only those who should be allowed to see that content

Incentivized

• I've installed SharePoint in many different industries and each industry has seen greater collaboration among their teams both locally and nationally. The ability to collaborate more efficiently has reduced the need to have employees centrally located.
• Companies which have used SharePoint in a end user training portal have had great ROI, since they can create the content once and share with all their users who subscribe to their training service. The web content management aspect of SharePoint is a very helpful feature.