Leapfile Managed File Transfer vs. Binary Tree by Quest

We replaced ShareFile, that we had used for 7 years, due to a cost increase. LeapFile appeared to provide the exact same solution for a better price. However, the headaches we are experiencing with the product are costing us valuable time, money and frustration, both among our staff and between our clients.

• There are 3 ways to use LeapFile: the desktop app, the web app, the Outlook plugin

• The interface is almost all text-based with minimal graphics. Because of that it can be difficult for our employees and our clients to quickly decide what action to take to complete their downloads.
• We have found the admin controls to not work consistently, causing lots of headaches.
• Some emails sent via the Outlook plugin will cause formatted text to look extremely confusing on the download page that a client must view in order to take an action to retrieve their files. The text shows all the HTML code wrapped around it.
• Uploads web page will tend to hold a cookie that "remembers" an expired link, causing our clients to receive an error.

Similar functionality but LeapFile has a lower cost and a more basic interface. ShareFile was infinitely easier to use for both our employees and clients

• Too much time spent on addressing individual client issues while attempting to send or retrieve files.
• Too much time spent on testing and troubleshooting our employees' issues while attempting to send or retrieve files.