ELO & Competitors

ELO Digital Office GmbH ELOonline www.elo.com

Leitzstr. 54 ELOforum www.elo.docufied.de

70469 Stuttgart

Market Market CompetitorsCompetitors



70469 Stuttgart

Easy AG

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 archivingWeaknesses:• Pure archiving product• 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

http://www.easy.de



70469 Stuttgart

SER Solutions GmbH

Strengths:• Wide-ranging product portfolio from archive to workflow system• 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

http://www.ser.de



70469 Stuttgart

Documentum (EMC²)

Strengths:• 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.documentum.com



70469 Stuttgart

IXOS Open Text

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

http://www.ixos.de



70469 Stuttgart

FileNet AG (Taken over by IBM)

Strengths:• 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

http://www.filenet.de



70469 Stuttgart

d-velop

Strengths:• Late entry to market; customer specific development of product• Strong marketing• 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

http://www.d-velop.de



70469 Stuttgart

Windream

Strength:• 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

http://www.windream.de



70469 Stuttgart

Saperion

Strengths:• Good product• One of few genuine competitors in the market• 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.saperion.de



70469 Stuttgart

DocuWare

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:

http://www.docuware.de



70469 Stuttgart

Ceyonic GmbH

Strengths:• 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

http://www.ceyoniq.de



70469 Stuttgart

Hummingbird - Potential Takeover by OpenText

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.hummingbird.com



70469 Stuttgart

IBM – Lotus Notes; Content Manager

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

http://www-306.ibm.com/software/de/db2/cm/cm.html



70469 Stuttgart

Microsoft Sharepoint Portal Server

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



70469 Stuttgart

PentaDoc StudyPentaDoc Study

Software Supplier

d.velop ELO Optimal

Systems

Saperion SER

Overall result

☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺Rating 2,2 2,0 2,1 2,2 2,1

http://www.pentadoc.de

Point scale: 1 – 6 1 = best 6 = worst



70469 Stuttgart

Analysis Methods

Archive DMS Workflow Small Medium Large

DocumentumIXOSCEYONIQEASYFileNETSERCOIn.n.

ELO x x x x x x

Documents

ELO & Competitors