4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Jun 13, 2016
Selection of product was relatively simple, implementing to the complicated use cases is proving difficult.
consider that this market may be disrupted by larger players soon.
look for mature easy to use solutions to support individual use cases.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Jun 10, 2016
We performed an earlier PoC, but due to the internal security constraints, we really weren't able to fully evaluate the performance and to a degree the usability of the application.
Decide early on if you can get away with a cloud-only solution and/or Microsoft (e.g. OneDrive for Business) or if you really need to have it on-premises (or hosted by Accellion on AWS). The multi-tiered nature of the product was beneficial for our high-security requirements. If enterprise connectors are important to you (e.g. SharePoint, OpenText), then this is a product you should consider. Also, we technically are still waiting for the release (Arckite) that promises the needed AV and DLP scenarios, currently a gap with the existing (BMW) release.
The fact that they have multiple mobile clients and enterprise connectors to meet our needs.
The iOS client still seems a little "crashy" so I hope that our production deployment is more stable and not an inherent weakness of the client itself.
The UI/UX of the iOS mobile client is okay, but there are less-than-intuitive aspects to it. I contrast this with something like Box, which is very intuitive. Similarly, the Windows desktop application to perform synchronization and offline editing are much weaker and limited compared to other desktop synchronization tools I've worked with.
Nothing, except for trying to get through the project more quickly. Due to a number of internal factors, moving quickly was not really possible.
I'm still on the fence. If we didn't have more esoteric enterprise connector (e.g. OpenText) requirements, I might have favored a different product.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Mar 1, 2016
Accellion is fairly easy to work with, and receptive to making product changes necessary to meet our needs.
We have a multiple DMZ setup, and this product is flexible enough to easily accomodate that. Also, we were able to handle multi-site deployments with redundancy and data replication. This is a well thought out solution.
Vendor is willing to make code modifications to support customer needs.
Web interface has a "move tray" which is very confusing and possibly unneeded. This poses training difficulties, as nobody seems to understand what it is and how it is to be used right off the bat.
Nothing - slowdowns were on our end, not vendor end.
We evaluated several competing products and this one had the best feature set for the price with an easy to use experience for our employees. Also, we have unique security requirements, and the product was flexible enough to meet our deployment needs.
Vendor is willing to share roadmap futures and to make custom code modifications to support specific needs on our part.
Very flexible and worked well in our complex environment.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 8, 2015
KiteWorks is full-featured and allows my company to share documents with business partners, while retaining it on premises. Today this is important for my company. Compliance with my company's security and risk policies fit well with Accellion. However, user adoption has not been as strong as hoped, largely due to the less familiar mechanics and appearance of the application. Employees who use DropBox or Google Drive, especially, are less motivated to embrace kiteWorks.
Build awareness among users.
Integrate with as many other end-user apps as possible.
Massive marketing and training, focused on benefits and ensuring users can be quickly successful with kiteworks.
Support is prompt and thorough.
Migration from previous version is not simple.
5 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 8, 2015
Ease of use with integration with Outlook.
There are more options now. Large file attachments for email is not the same as file sharing in the cloud. You must know your requirements and choose the solutions that fits the best.
It basically runs on it's own as long as you have enough disk space allocated for it.
Nothing to dislike.
They did not market their product as aggressively as they should have. Other products are more widely known but not necessarily better.
At the time there was not any other product that met our specific requirements so we would not have done anything differently.