Cerner HealtheIntent vs OnBase by Hyland

• Reliability means Cerner HealtheIntent hardly ever goes down
• Cerner HealtheIntent can be customized for our business needs
• We have our own Cerner HealtheIntent server instead of using the cloud

Read full review

• Integration with third party applications is amazing. Being able to get documents and information through email, folder importing, mainframe screens, other applications, and xml/csv streams was simple, powerful, and effective.
• The Application Enabler utility is one of the best I've seen which allows integration with 3rd party applications to easily pull up and locate related information within an Onbase system.
• The administration of the platform is simple and with minimal training can be maintained by a regular system administrator.

Read full review

• Metadata management in HealtheIntent should be improved. For example, we could find similar looking data sources (for example, diagnosis tables with similar names) but it was hard to distinguish and know which one is the one in production. It was because several data stewards loaded the same table with a different purpose (with similar tables names). And HealtheIntent doesn't have a metadata "for a test" or "for development", which makes hard to manage versions of one data source.
• To run a SQL in HealtheIntent, there is a time limit of only 10 minutes. Also, there is no delicate configuration of query execution. It may not need a lot of functions like Toad or SQL developer, but what HealtheIntent provides is very limited.
• Similar to the one above, HealtheIntent may need better metadata management for users. It is hard to find a table that I need, even to find out the existence of the table. Basic statistics like the size of a table, # of rows may be helpful for users.

Read full review

• Lack of feature parity between clients. Some features are supported in Thick Client, but not in Unity Client (Or the other way around).
• Confusing menu structures within administrative programs. Lots of bouncing between programs in order to configure or tweak things.
• Report Services is an additional license and should be included with the base product.

Read full review

• ROI may be depending on the contract. But even if an organization is spending the same money for either homegrown analytics or HealtheIntent, HealtheIntent provides more agility of project or cost spending. If you don't like it you can discontinue anytime.
• The negative one is, HealtheIntent is a new product in Cerner and at this point, it may not be capable of everything like homegrown analytics. The question would be the future of HealtheIntent and will be able to cover what you need soon.
• If an organization is pursuing a standard, generic analytics and reporting (such as the combination of Oracle and Tableau), HealtheIntent is great. If not (for example, running R and d3.js for specific cases), the cost of migration to HealtheIntent will skyrocket.

Read full review

• We have leveraged OnBase to automate many tasks that have been paper driven in the past and are now electronic.
• Because OnBase is so versatile, it has been the solution for projects that otherwise would have caused the system to purchase another application.

Read full review