Alfresco vs. Kiteworks

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

Kiteworks is very good for securely sharing files external to your company and doing so without your customers knowing who each other are. The interface is simple and relatively intuitive. We have had some issues in getting timely support from Accellion this past year, but they seem to be doing better lately.

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

• Microsoft Office Plugins
• Desktop Synchronization
• Mobile Ability
• Group chat
• File Filtering

• 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

• Encrypting our files appears to be less than 100% complete
• Software updates cannot be scheduled to take place automatically like their old product
• Detailed activity logging is not available to administrators. You must submit the logs to Accellion for analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

The main reason for selecting Kiteworks is that when sharing files with multiple customers, each customer has no idea who the other customers are. To do that in Teams would require users to create a private team for each customer, which would be very [time-consuming].

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

• Before then kitework we used 3 different products. It was expensive and difficult manage.