ELO & Competitors
ELO & Competitors
Competitors
Strengths:
• Very good marketing, strong brand
• Small number of strong partners (Distribution concept)
• Direct sales via Easy Solutions GmbH
• High level of market penetration due to previous archive distribution
• Good entry level product for pure archiving
Weaknesses:
• Pure archiving product http://www.easy.de
• Workflow, Portal and other modules are external developments
• Solution aimed at small to medium size companies, not for large companies or groups
• Product relatively expensive for the functionality provided
• Design weaknesses in product, no general compatibility, e.g. CAD
• Black-Box container principle – migration problems
• Only a flat structure possible – no intuitive user guidance (cabinet – folder)
• Keywording via fulltext – performance problems
Differences to ELO:
• As PLC dependant upon financial markets
• Numerous Easy-Installations have been replaced
Strengths:
• Wide-ranging product portfolio from archive to workflow system http://www.ser.de
• Leader in Banking and governmental fields as well as by energy utilities
(SAP ISU interface)
• Built on the success or the former SER AG:
– Technology
– Widely installed basis
– SAP – Know How
– Frequently certified company solution
Weaknesses:
• Effort intensive and complex solution (effort intensive customizing)
• Expensive;
• Large product portfolio, high license costs
• Direct sales, very few partners
• Proprietary System (SER format in SER Jukebox on SER data storage)
Differences to ELO:
• Negative experiences of former shareholders
Strengths: http://www.documentum.com
• Specialised in DMS for large companies
• Powerful WEB interface, content management for complex structures
• Leader for large companies/groups in automotive field and manufacturing industry
• FDA certified
• Frequently certified company solution
Weaknesses:
• Developed for the US-Army;
• Subject to various export rules (e.g. cannot be exported to China)
• No own product archive server; product designed for large data volumes
• No standard interface; individual programming required
• Expensive
Differences to ELO:
• Has been purchased by EMC²
http://www.ixos.de
Strengths:
• Capable archive system for high data volumes (>100 million documents)
• Specialised and former market leader in SAP field
• High worldwide market share through takeover
Weaknesses:
• Purchased by Open Text; dependant upon american market forces
• Numerous good employees have left the company, customer service levels have been
damaged
• No self-produced DMS and workflow modules
• Specialised for SAP field
• Expensive (each SAP archive workplace requires an IXOS-Client)
Differences to ELO:
• IXOS purchased by Open Text
• Multiple IXOS archives migrated
• Parent company listed on the US stockmarket
ELO Digital Office GmbH ELOonline www.elo.com
Leitzstr. 54 ELOforum www.elo.docufied.de
70469 Stuttgart
FileNet AG (Taken over by IBM)
Strengths:
http://www.filenet.de
• Long-term success in large scale projects
• Strentghs in banking and manufacturing industry markets - worldwide
• High performance technology
Weaknesses:
• Structure problems in management
• Complex effort intensive technology
• Expensive system solution
Differences to ELO:
• Not produced in Germany
• Strong SAP and large customer orientation
• High cost ECM solution for large companies/groups
Strengths:
• Late entry to market; customer specific development of product
• Strong marketing http://www.d-velop.de
• Very competitively priced
• DMS complete solution
• Good solution for building societies
Weaknesses:
• Partner network
No Multi-CAD module
• Partner required to purchase a share of company
• Strong orientation towards banking and insurance
• Workflow function performs poorly
• No Java server
• Weak API, not published - all project customizations must be programmed by hand by
the customer - expensive
Differences to ELO:
• No company tradition
• No 1:1 representation of archives, folders or indices
Strength:
http://www.windream.de
• Integration in Microsoft Explorer
• Extremely competitively priced
Weaknesses:
• Repeatedly insolvent = no long term planning security
• Integration in Microsoft Explorer
• No own product workflow
• No 1:1 reproduction of cabinets, folders or indices
• Weak partner network; direct sales
Difference to ELO:
• No self-developed GUI
Strengths:
• Good product
• One of few genuine competitors in the market
http://www.saperion.de
• Strong marketing
Weaknesses:
• “4 Window Technology” for displaying documents
• No 1:1 reproduction of cabinets, folders or indices
• Partner network and direct sales
• Partner can supply products from numerous software companies/suppliers
• High price
• Relatively old development base
• poor Office integration
Differences to ELO:
• No Java development planned
• Company does not have GmbH (PLC) status
http://www.docuware.de
Strengths:
• Well distributed at banks and building societies
• Competitively priced
Weaknesses:
• Archive system and not a DMS
• No integrated workflow
• Not intuitive for users (multiple window technology)
• Old technology basis
• Weak marketing
• Weak partner structure; direkt sales
• Direct access to SQL
• No document access restrictions through the archive
Differences to ELO:
Strengths: http://www.ceyoniq.de
• Complete product portfolio from archive to workflow system
• Strong in banking field
• Experienced in large scale projects
• Based on the success of the earlier CE AG:
– Widely installed basis
– Certified company solution
Weaknesses:
• Has financial links to certain customers after financial problems
• Effort intensive and complex solution (effort intensive customizing)
• High price
• GmbH (limited company) does not honour any previous software/support contracts
• Wide-ranging product portfolio, high license costs
• Weak partner network; direct sales
• Poor migrations startegy for large customers provided by the former Siemens company SiDoc after the
takeover
• Weak Web interface
Differences to ELO:
• Negative views held by former shareholders
Strength:
• Worldwide market presence
• Strength for large customers
• Governmental field
Weaknesses:
• Expensive
• High customizing effort
• DMS produkt, no archive
• No workflow
Difference to ELO:
• Not a German product
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/de/db2/cm/cm.html
Strengths:
• Strong brand name
• Leading product at large IBM customers
Weaknesses:
• Not a standard product; high costs of customizing
• Only project based
• Products in direct competition with one another
• Expensive
• Personal intensive
Differences to ELO:
• Not a German product
Strength:
• Seamless integration with the Microsoft world (Office, Dynamics, IE, …)
• Strong brand name
• Archiving of numerous file formats
• Drag&Drop importing
• Discussions (Chat function)
• Multi-language
Weaknesses:
• No integration with other applications then those from Microsoft
• No backup and mirror paths
• No archiving to MO media
• No email archiving
• No revision secure archiving
• No duplication or checksum control
• Automated archiving not possible
• Scanning and OCR not possible
• No barcode recognition
• No reminder items or workflows
Difference to ELO:
• Worldwide giant Microsoft
• Speciality: known weaknesses can be solved with ELO (ideal add-on)
No competition, only a Front-end
Overall result
☺☺☺ ☺ ☺
Rating 2,2 2,0 2,1 2,2 2,1
ELO x x x x x x
ELO Digital Office GmbH ELOonline www.elo.com
Leitzstr. 54 ELOforum www.elo.docufied.de
70469 Stuttgart