Concrete5 vs MS SharePoint

• Concrete5 provides a very easy interface for website owners/administrators. Adding pages and content is simple and straightforward.
• Concrete5.7+ works well on mobile devices such as phones and tablets - including admin editing tools.
• Concrete5 has a good user community and support forums, as well as paid add-ons which provide advanced functionality which other open-source CMSs can lack.

Read full review

• Permission management: This is super relevant and wonderful for controlling what your audience can see and do, for example, when you need someone to constantly see changes to a "living document" but not have the ability to intervene in the process.
• Contact groups: I find it super good since not necessarily the site administrators are the only ones who can manage the group, you can make any member of the group can manage the rest of the members without this being involved in other site settings. Also when granting permissions, distributing documents, announcements, tasks, it is very easy to do it by group of contacts than one by one.
• Version history: We know that we are exposed to errors and accidents, so having the previous versions of a document, being able to see who has modified and having the possibility of restoring any of those versions can save the day. I always feel that I am protected and that is why I always promote working in the cloud.
• Integration with other MS tools: The workflows that connect outlook, sharepoint, onedrive, among others, where you can manage multiple actions for all these tools seems wonderful to me, it allows a super necessary and simple expansion to be able to automate tasks that used to be performed manually on a daily basis, it certainly contributes to efficiency.

Read full review

• Concrete5 uses Bootstrap in their UI so when developing themes that may also use Bootstrap there can be conflicts using the same classes. This has been solved somewhat in 5.7, however, by use of namespacing.
• Concrete5's MVC structure is great in how easy you can override blocks. However, if you go nuts you can quickly rack up an obscene amount of stylesheet and "is" calls in the head of the document which can hurt performance.
• It's been criticized for having a rather large amount of files, which can be a problem on cheaper shared hosting, but I can't speak to that personally. We've never had a problem.

Read full review

• Managing access permissions is still clunky - not a whole lot better in newer versions than it was way back when it was first launched.
• Re-organization of the site hierarchy isn't very easy. You need a third-party tool to do anything meaningful when you want to rearrange your site pages and move site libraries.
• It doesn't provide for any kind of backup, so you have to either have it on=prem where you can backup the entire server or you have to buy a third-party tool if you are using the online hosted version (SPO).

Read full review

• Clients rarely require support with simple tasks such as updating pages allowing our developers to focus on higher value projects.
• Cost reduction due to increased employee efficiency
• Increased customer satisfaction as clients are able to have more control over their websites.

Read full review

• SharePoint is one of the most underused tools on campus, because no one is exactly sure how to use it. It has a lot of potential, but is too difficult and intimidating for non-technical users to do more than the basics.
• Microsoft hasn't distinguished SharePoint from Teams or other products very well. It's not clear if it'll be easier to just direct users there, and do the behind the scenes stuff in SharePoint. This makes communication with end users muddled.
• SharePoint is a bad place to communicate in real time, and Skype / Teams is much better positioned in this space. Teams is underwhelming and Skype for Business has it's issues - but they are designed with this goal in mind.

Read full review