Vendor Landscape: Cloud File Sharing

Transcription

1 When attachments fail you, look up to the Cloud for your file collaboration needs!, Inc. Is a global leader in providing IT research and advice. Info-Tech s products and services combine actionable insight and relevant advice w ith ready-to-use tools and templates that cover the full spectrum of IT concerns Inc. 1

2 Introduction As file sizes have increased and document-centric collaboration needs have become more complex, many organizations are turning to cloud file sharing (CFS) products to provide end users with a lightweight but effective solution. This Research Is Designed For: IT leaders who want to understand how document-centric collaboration can be enabled via CFS solutions. Application managers looking to complement their existing ECM ecosystems with cloud file sharing applications. Enterprises seeking to select a specific vendor for cloud file sharing. Their CFS use case may include: Need to enable document collaboration for remote workers. Need a product for persistent team communication. This Research Will Help You: Understand what s new in the CFS market. Review the feature sets and functionality offered by market-leading CFS vendors and their products. Evaluate CFS vendors and products for your enterprise needs. Determine which products are most appropriate for particular use cases and scenarios. 2

3 Executive Summary Info-Tech evaluated eight competitors in the cloud file sharing solution market, including the following notable performers: Champion: Box, a vendor that offers a strong enterprise-ready product, combined with an excellent third-party application ecosystem. Value Award: Google, the vendor that provides the most bang for the buck with its unparalleled search capabilities. Trend Setter Award: Infrascale, a vendor that boasts a CFS solution with military-grade security with its three-layer encryption. Citrix, a vendor that offers unique on-premise or hybrid deployment models for its CFS solution. Info-Tech Insight 1. It s easier than SharePoint and can integrate with SharePoint on the back end. Knowledge workers are embracing CFS more rapidly than other content collaboration tools, like SharePoint, because the file/folder metaphor is well-understood by knowledge workers and is mobile-ready out of the box. 2. Collaboration features are most important. The ability for employees to act upon content shared through CFS provides the value. Look for features like follow, comment, assign task, and co-edit. 3. The enterprise security gap is almost closed. Over half of the vendors in this report support full IT admin, security, and audit controls. Some support private/public data storage options. However private, enterprise-controlled cloud encryption remains absent at this time. 3

4 Market Overview How it got here Internet file hosting services have been around for a long time, but only after the advent of Box and Dropbox in 2006 did the market gain mainstream traction from consumers. The massive end-user adoption was mainly due to the ease of use achieved from automated syncing capabilities, as well as a files and folders metaphor that end users embraced over more complicated ECM paradigms. As the market started to mature in recent years, existing vendors began to shift focus from consumers to businesses. Many of the newest entrants to the market are completely enterprise-focused. In preparation to pitch towards businesses, many CFS vendors were quick to add administrative capabilities over sharing files with internal teams and external recipients. They have also put in effort to secure files in transit and at rest. Where it s going Following the consumerization of IT trend, adoption of CFS solutions by businesses is mostly initiated bottomup. However, sales and marketing effort from vendors is slowly changing the purchase pattern, and Info-Tech is seeing more and more CFS adoption as an enterprise initiative. The core technology around file storing/syncing is fully mature. Vendors are now focusing on social collaboration. Some innovators today are already offering features such as threaded discussions, personalized activity streams, tasks, and synchronous editing of files. However, the movement towards collaboration introduces much overlap with social collaboration platforms, which is an already mature market. Therefore, Info-Tech predicts the two markets will converge within the next five years. We also predict that managed file transfer and cloud backup vendors will be making major plays in the CFS market in the next 12 to 18 months. As the market evolves, capabilities that were once cutting edge become default and new functionality becomes differentiating. File syncing has become a Table Stakes capability and should no longer be used to differentiate solutions. Instead focus on collaboration capabilities and advanced security features (such as multiple layers of encryption and single sign on) to get the best fit for your requirements. 4

5 CFS vendor selection / knock-out criteria: market share, mind share, and platform coverage Vendors in this report are some of the most prominent and well-recognized CFS vendors from a business-focus standpoint. We also evaluated a few juggernauts with a strong consumer presence, but that are making enterprise plays as well. Excluded were purely consumer-focused offerings (such as icloud). For this Vendor Landscape, Info-Tech focused on those vendors that offer broad capabilities across multiple platforms and that have a strong market presence and/or reputational presence among mid- and large-sized enterprises. Included in this Vendor Landscape: Box: An extremely popular business-ready alternative to the more unsecure consumer offerings. Citrix ShareFile: An innovative solution with an on-premise option for risk or compliance-minded organizations. Dropbox for Business: Better known in the consumer space, Dropbox now has an enterprise play as well. Google Drive: Originally a popular consumer offering, Drive is now finding itself being used by E2E teams as well. Infrascale FileLocker: A newer entrant, but one with a powerful and compelling story around file security. Microsoft SkyDrive: Microsoft is joining the fray, integrating SkyDrive with Office 365 and SharePoint. SugarSync: A compelling offering with an extremely consistent interface across multiple devices. Hightail (formerly YouSendIt): A best-of-breed option for deep integration and attachment replacement. 5

6 Cloud File Sharing criteria & weighting factors Features Usability Product Evaluation Criteria The solution provides basic and advanced feature/functionality. The solution s dashboard and reporting tools are intuitive and easy to use. Features 40% Criteria Weighting: Usability 20% % Affordability The three-year TCO of the solution is economical. Architecture 20% Affordability Architecture The delivery method of the solution aligns with what is expected within the space. Product 70% Vendor Evaluation Criteria Viability Vendor is profitable, knowledgeable, and will be around for the long term. 30% Strategy Vendor is committed to the space and has a future product and portfolio roadmap. Viability Vendor Strategy Reach Vendor offers global coverage and is able to sell and provide post-sales support. 25% 30% Channel Vendor channel strategy is appropriate and the channels themselves are strong. Channel 15% 30% Reach 6

7 The Info-Tech Cloud File Sharing Vendor Landscape The Zones of the Landscape Champions receive high scores for most evaluation criteria and offer excellent value. They have a strong market presence and are usually the trend setters for the industry. Market Pillars are established players with very strong vendor credentials, but with more average product scores. The Info-Tech CFS Vendor Landscape: Infrascale Box Innovators have demonstrated innovative product strengths that act as their competitive advantage in appealing to niche segments of the market. Emerging Players are comparatively newer vendors who are starting to gain a foothold in the marketplace. They balance product and vendor attributes, though score lower relative to market Champions. Citrix Hightail SugarSync Google Microsoft Dropbox For an explanation of how the Info-Tech Vendor Landscape is created, see Information Presentation Vendor Landscape in the Appendix. 7

8 Balance individual strengths to find the best fit for your enterprise Product Vendor Overall Features Usability Afford. Arch. Overall Viability Strategy Reach Channel Box Citrix Dropbox Google Infrascale Microsoft SugarSync Hightail (formerlyyousendit) Legend =Exemplary =Good =Adequate =Inadequate =Poor For an explanation of how the Info-Tech Harvey Balls are calculated, see Information Presentation Criteria Scores (Harvey Balls) in the Appendix. 8

9 The Info-Tech Cloud File Sharing Value Index What is a Value Score? The Value Score indexes each vendor s product offering and business strength relative to their price point. It does not indicate vendor ranking. Champion On a relative basis, Google maintained the highest Info-Tech Value Score TM of the vendor group. Vendors were indexed against Google s performance to provide a complete, relative view of their product offerings. Vendors that score high offer more bang for the buck (e.g. features, usability, stability, etc.) than the average vendor, while the inverse is true for those that score lower. Price-conscious enterprises may wish to give the Value Score more consideration than those who are more focused on specific vendor/product attributes. 100 Google Microsoft Hightail Infrascale Dropbox SugarSync Average Score: Citrix Box 10 For an explanation of how Price is determined, see Information Presentation Price Evaluation in the Appendix. For an explanation of how the Info-Tech Value Index is calculated, see Information Presentation Value Index in the Appendix. 9

10 Table Stakes represent the minimum standard; without these, a product doesn t even get reviewed The Table Stakes Feature Cloud File Repository Sharing Capabilities Basic Content Management What it is: The solution provides a cloud-based file repository structure for storing content. Files or folders can be easily shared between different users. Files can be ordered/structured in some hierarchical manner according to users needs. What Does This Mean? The products assessed in this Vendor Landscape TM meet, at the very least, the requirements outlined as Table Stakes. Many of the vendors go above and beyond the outlined Table Stakes, some even do so in multiple categories. This section aims to highlight the products capabilities in excess of the criteria listed here. Basic Sync The product provides some mechanism for updating files across devices. If Table Stakes are all you need from your cloud file sharing solution, the only true differentiator for the organization is price. Otherwise, dig deeper to find the best price to value for your needs. 10

11 Advanced Features are the capabilities that allow for granular market differentiation Scoring Methodology Info-Tech scored each vendor s features offering as a summation of their individual scores across the listed advanced features. Vendors were given one point for each feature the product inherently provided. Some categories were scored on a more granular scale with vendors receiving half points. Advanced Features Feature Library Services Desktop Sync Mobile Sync File Administration User Administration Content Security Collaboration Capabilities Reporting Capabilities Front-End App Integration What we looked for: How content is handled (e.g. ability to check documents in and out, how many versions, etc.) Contextual integration (e.g. right-click features), search integration with Explorer or Finder) Native apps, preview function, inline editing, remote wipe on mobile devices Extent of control over shared file admin (passcode lock, link expiry, file self-destruct) AD LDAP integration, user roles, group memberships, broadcast messaging Basic in-transit and at-rest encryption: advanced points awarded for double-blind encryption Ability to follow folders and files, commenting and liking, workflow, synchronous editing In-depth capabilities to log and track user activity and file history, compliance reports End-user friendly integration with productivity tools or clients and other enterprise apps For an explanation of how Advanced Features are determined, see Information Presentation Feature Ranks (Stop Lights) in the Appendix. 11

12 Each vendor offers a different feature set; concentrate on what your organization needs Evaluated Features Lbry Srvcs Desktop Mobile File Admin User Admin Cont Security Collab Cap Audit/Report App Int Box Citrix Dropbox Google Infrascale Microsoft SugarSync Hightail (formerlyyousendit) Legend =Feature fully present =Feature partially present/pending =Feature Absent For an explanation of how Advanced Features are determined, see Information Presentation Feature Ranks (Stop Lights) in the Appendix. 12

13 Scenario 1: On-premise or hybrid deployment These vendors support deployment options other than Software-as-a-Service using public cloud. 1 On-Premise or Hybrid Deployment 2 3 Why Scenarios? In reviewing the products included in each Vendor Landscape TM, certain use cases come to the forefront. Whether those use cases are defined by applicability in certain locations, relevance for certain industries, or as strengths in delivering a specific capability, Info- Tech recognizes those use cases as Scenarios, and calls attention to them where they exist. Exemplary Performers By far offers the most flexibility in regards to deployment models. Customers can store data wherever they want to. Roughly 40% of their client base is using a fully customer-managed model or a hybrid model. Infrascale FileLocker can be deployed on Infrascale s cloud, third-party public cloud, or private cloud. Microsoft SkyDrive Pro can sync its library with either SharePoint online or on-premise deployments of SharePoint Server For an explanation of how Scenarios are determined, see Information Presentation Scenarios in the Appendix. 13

14 Scenario 2: Enterprise application integration The features of CFS solutions alone might not be enough for your enterprise needs. Certain vendors excel at integrating with enterprise applications. 1 2 Enterprise Application Integration 3 Why Scenarios? In reviewing the products included in each Vendor Landscape TM, certain use cases come to the forefront. Whether those use cases are defined by applicability in certain locations, relevance for certain industries, or as strengths in delivering a specific capability, Info- Tech recognizes those use cases as Scenarios, and calls attention to them where they exist. Exemplary Performers Box natively integrates with many enterprise applications such as CRM, Single Sign On (SSO) solutions, Social Collaboration platforms, etc. Its app marketplace is very mature, with numerous partners. Many enterprise applications, especially cloud solutions such as Salesforce.com and Zoho, integrate with Dropbox. However, Dropbox lacks a central catalog of integrations. Both Hightail and Microsoft SkyDrive Pro offer deep integration with Microsoft SharePoint. For an explanation of how Scenarios are determined, see Information Presentation Scenarios in the Appendix. 14

15 Scenario 3: Custom application integration Your company might want the features of CFS solutions to work under the hood of your custom application Custom Application Integration Why Scenarios? In reviewing the products included in each Vendor Landscape TM, certain use cases come to the forefront. Whether those use cases are defined by applicability in certain locations, relevance for certain industries, or as strengths in delivering a specific capability, Info- Tech recognizes those use cases as Scenarios, and calls attention to them where they exist. Exemplary Performers Box invests heavily on its API strategy. It boasts a community of 25,000 developers, and supports roughly 700 million third-party API calls per month. Google offers an extensive set of APIs. Its Optical Character Recognition (OCR) API deserves a special mention, allowing it to pull in pen and paper content and seamlessly index it. For an explanation of how Scenarios are determined, see Information Presentation Scenarios in the Appendix. 15

16 Box offers a strong, enterprise-ready product, combined with an excellent third-party application ecosystem Champion Product: Employees: Headquarters: Website: Founded: Presence: Box 800+ Los Altos, CA box.com 2005 Private 3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing tier 6, between $100,000 and $250,000 $1 $2.5M+ Pricing provided by vendor Overview A first-mover in the enterprise CFS space, Box is a vendor that offers a great out-of-the-box experience with a massive portfolio of third-party applications that integrate with the Box platform, such as ECM, CRM, and Single-Sign On applications. Box is an excellent go-to vendor for those seeking a secure, enterprise version of a consumer-centric platform like Dropbox. Strengths The maturity of Box API enables Box to be easily embedded in custom applications. The company claims to have 25,000+ developers and 700 million third-party API calls a month. For an ecosystem that is only a year old, Box OneCloud is outstandingly mature. There are 500+ application partners who offer their integrated products in Box s version of an app store. Box offers extremely robust administrative and security controls for IT professionals. Its security architecture was also one of the better ones we ve seen. Challenges Contextual integration is lacking in the Mac (though not PC) desktop client. The client does not support right-click features, nor menu bar features. Compared to other vendors on the market, the enterprise version of Box is not always the most cost-conscious choice available. 16

17 Box is trying to become more of a platform, and is quite successful with its mature app marketplace Vendor Landscape Product Vendor Overall Features Usability Afford. Arch. Overall Viability Strategy Reach Channel Collaboration Features of Box Value Index 13 8 th out of 8 Document collaboration Discussions Activity stream No synchronous editing available Commenting on files, threaded discussions Features Personalized activity stream, assigning tasks Lbry Srv cs Desktop Mobile File Admin User Admin Cont Security Collab Cap Audit/Report App Int Info-Tech Recommends: Box offers an outstanding product, and should be on the shortlist for any organization looking to replace unsecure consumer-centric versions of popular consumer solutions like Dropbox. However, it can be pricier than other platforms. 17

18 Google has a strong product, but requires orgs to live in its platform Market Pillar Product: Employees: Headquarters: Website: Founded: Presence: Google Drive 53,000 Mountain View, CA google.com 1998 NASDAQ: GOOG 3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing tier 4, between $25,000 and $50,000 $1 $2.5M+ Pricing solicited from public sources Overview Google established itself as a go-to vendor for those who do not want to invest heavily on desktop productivity applications. Google Drive is what connects the suite of applications offered in Google Apps, and it s very familiar to consumers. Strengths Google Drive provides users with powerful web-based search. Search terms are applied to not only document names, but also to the content of documents. This can apply to PDF files and image files, as Google uses OCR to index the content of files. Cross-device capabilities are impressive. Google has made significant investments in the mobile app space, and applications for Google Drive are best of breed. Challenges Files are not encrypted at-rest on Google s servers. This is required for Google to be able to provide such strong search capabilities. However, it opens the possibility of intruders (or even Google employees) viewing your company files. The tight integration with Google Apps can be a disadvantage if your company is already invested in other office productivity applications. Drive fails to offer strong administrative enterprise controls; it s definitely on the consumer side of the equation. 18

19 Google Drive provides unparalleled search capabilities, and it s a hit with firms pursuing an Office alternatives strategy Vendor Landscape Product Vendor Overall Features Usability Afford. Arch. Overall Viability Strategy Reach Channel Collaboration Features of Google Drive Document collaboration Discussions Activity stream Value Index st out of 8 Synchronous editing Commenting on files Basic file access log Features Lbry Srv cs Desktop Mobile File Admin User Admin Cont Security Collab Cap Audit/Report App Int Info-Tech Recommends: Google Drive provides good bang for the buck, but encryption and administrative control concerns will prevent it from being a strong contender for security-minded organizations. 19

20 Microsoft bets on its flawless vendor strength and power of its Office portfolio, but it s too tied to the MS ecosystem Market Pillar Product: Employees: Headquarters: Website: Founded: Presence: Microsoft SkyDrive Pro 90,000 Redmond, WA microsoft.com 1993 NASDAQ: MSFT 3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing tier 5, between $50,000 and $100,000 $1 $2.5M+ Pricing solicited from public sources Overview Microsoft Office is used by all sizes and types of companies. Microsoft is betting big on the adoption of the latest versions of Office, especially with its fully cloud-based Office 365 which includes SkyDrive Pro. Strengths Microsoft SkyDrive Pro offers strong file editing capabilities and administrative capabilities via integration with Microsoft Office applications and Microsoft SharePoint. The solution works seamlessly within the Office environment (particularly Office 2013), making it a great choice if your teams only need to collaborate around documents produced via the Office ecosystem. Challenges Although SkyDrive Pro can be integrated with Microsoft s social collaboration platform Yammer, on its own, collaboration capabilities are lacking. SkyDrive Pro can be a powerful file sharing solution, but only when paired with Microsoft s platforms. Microsoft s positioning around SkyDrive is still confusing it s not entirely clear if it s meant to supplant or complement older ECM solutions, including SharePoint. 20

21 Microsoft SkyDrive Pro is a great choice for those who use SharePoint and Office extensively, but others should beware Vendor Landscape Product Vendor Overall Features Usability Afford. Arch. Overall Viability Strategy Reach Channel Collaboration Features of Microsoft SkyDrive Pro Value Index 73 3 rd out of 8 Document collaboration Discussions Activity stream Synchronous editing Commenting only on Office documents Features Not supported Lbry Srv cs Desktop Mobile File Admin User Admin Cont Security Collab Cap Audit/Report App Int Info-Tech Recommends: Microsoft SkyDrive Pro provides advanced features only through integration with the latest Microsoft Office suite, which comes with an even heftier price tag. If you need to collaborate extensively around non-office files, there are better options out there. 21

22 SugarSync provides exemplary desktop syncing capabilities and a refreshingly consistent UX across multiple devices Market Pillar Product: Employees: Headquarters: Website: Founded: Presence: SugarSync 60 San Mateo, CA sugarsync.com 2004 Private 3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing tier 5, between $50,000 and $100,000 $1 $2.5M+ Pricing solicited from public sources Overview SugarSync targets the working individual. In other words, they are betting heavily on the consumerization of IT. Such a strategy is successful with companies with a highly mobile workforce, an area of key interest for SugarSync. Strengths SugarSync s desktop client is top class. It enables users to sync and share any folder (not just a single designated folder) in their system. The contextual integration is also above par. SugarSync provides native mobile apps for ios, Android, BlackBerry OS, and Windows Phone OS. Users can easily edit, share, and manage files with these apps. Interface consistency between applications was above-andbeyond what we saw from other vendors. Challenges While its mobile apps are powerful, SugarSync s web application ironically does not support previewing documents. The built-in activity log is quite basic. Download activity is not logged, and filters are not supported. As a smaller vendor, SugarSync does not have the same global reach offered by some of its more entrenched competitors in the CFS space. Application integration capabilities aren t as welldeveloped vis-à-vis the big players. 22

23 Companies that place paramount importance on userfriendliness and desktop sync should look at SugarSync Vendor Landscape Product Vendor Overall Features Usability Afford. Arch. Overall Viability Strategy Reach Channel Collaboration Features of SugarSync Value Index 48 5 th out of 8 Document collaboration Discussions Activity stream Available via integration with No synchronous editing social networks Basic file access log available (e.g. Facebook) Features Lbry Srv cs Desktop Mobile File Admin User Admin Cont Security Collab Cap Audit/Report App Int Info-Tech Recommends: SugarSync offers a product that includes an exceptional desktop client, but its application integration capabilities may be a hang up for some organizations, as well as its smaller vendor footprint. 23

24 Infrascale boasts a CFS solution with military-grade encryption a clear winner for the security-minded! Innovator Product: Employees: Headquarters: Website: Founded: Presence: Infrascale FileLocker 110 El Segundo, CA infrascale.com 2006 Private 3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing tier 5, between $50,000 and $100,000 $1 $2.5M+ Pricing provided by vendor Overview Infrascale focuses successfully on industries that require high security, such as government, healthcare, and finance. Its FileLocker product pairs tight double-blind encryption and robust administrative controls with an easy-to-use end-user interface. Strengths Infrascale is the only vendor to support encryption at end point natively. Not only are your company s files encrypted in transit and at rest on Infrascale s cloud, they can be encrypted at your company s endpoint. As the encryption key will reside in local machines, it would be impossible even for Infrascale to view your company files. This gives FileLocker a distinct edge for those who don t want to trust the vendor to ensure content is completely secure. Challenges Infrascale FileLocker scored poorly on integration. The list of application integrations available currently is Zoho, LinkedIn, Autodesk, and Scribd. The vendor s app catalog is still lacking when compared to major competitors. If you value a wide-range of integrations alongside tight security, Infrascale will be a balancing act. Price is above average, though cheaper with private cloud. 24

25 With its three layer encryption, Infrascale FileLocker is making a splash with firms with high security requirements Vendor Landscape Product Vendor Overall Features Usability Afford. Arch. Overall Viability Strategy Reach Channel Collaboration Features of Infrascale FileLocker Value Index 64 4 th out of 8 Document collaboration Discussions Activity stream Synchronous editing available Commenting on files Features Notification of team activities for team managers Lbry Srv cs Desktop Mobile File Admin User Admin Cont Security Collab Cap Audit/Report App Int Info-Tech Recommends: Infrascale offers a great product with exceptional security. Although it s newer to the party and third-party integrations are lacking, double-blind encryption and powerful administrative controls create a strong value proposition for those who need best-of-breed file security. 25

26 With strong Office integration and a modest price tag, Hightail is making waves in the SMB space Innovator Product: Employees: Headquarters: Website: Founded: Presence: Hightail 200 Campbell, CA hightail.com 2004 Private 3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing tier 5, between $50,000 and $100,000 $1 $2.5M+ Pricing provided by vendor Overview Hightail (formerly YouSendIt) is a favorite among users who spend much of their working hours on Outlook. The vendor is having tremendous success with verticals such as advertising, media, legal, and architecture. Outlook support is above par. Strengths Hightail is great for business users who use Outlook and/or SharePoint extensively. Deep integration with Outlook and SharePoint eliminates the need to change the workflow of such users. For example, almost every feature can be accessed right from the user s Outlook client. It s a clear winner as an attachment alternative vendor. Hightail provides granular activity logs. Details (e.g. who, when, how) around uploading, downloading, and sharing files are all logged. Challenges Apart from support for synchronous editing via integration with Office, Hightail seriously lacks collaboration capabilities. Its application integration catalog is relatively limited as well. From a market positioning standpoint, Hightail needs to place more emphasis on expanding beyond just an attachment alternative. Its capabilities are robust, but its marketing needs to catch up. 26

27 Hightail is not a rip and replace solution; it offers deep integration with SharePoint, Exchange, and Outlook Vendor Landscape Product Vendor Overall Features Usability Afford. Arch. Overall Viability Strategy Reach Channel Collaboration Features of Hightail Document collaboration Discussions Activity stream Value Index 77 2 nd out of 8 Synchronous editing Built-in signature capabilities Not available Features Lbry Srv cs Desktop Mobile File Admin User Admin Cont Security Collab Cap Audit/Report App Int Info-Tech Recommends: Hightail s integration with Outlook and SharePoint is outstanding. However, the product s shortcomings can be found in lacking collaboration capabilities and an extensive list of third-party integrations. However, if you need an attachment alternative or support for ECM integration, Hightail needs to be in your consideration set. 27

28 With a strong vendor profile, Citrix remains a good choice for those who value viability and reach Innovator Product: Employees: Headquarters: Website: Founded: Presence: Citrix ShareFile 8,000 Santa Clara, CA citrix.com/sharefile Citrix 1989, ShareFile 2005 NASDAQ: CTXS 3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing tier 6, between $100,000 and $250,000 $1 $2.5M+ Pricing provided by vendor Overview Citrix ShareFile offers a solid all-around product, but it is especially well received from enterprises that wish to keep their files on internal private clouds or on-prem deployments. Citrix is making moves to integrate ShareFile in their broader collaboration portfolio, including Podio and GoToMeeting Strengths ShareFile StorageZones provide the flexibility to choose between on-premise deployments that are fully customer managed, or Citrix-managed cloud deployments. A hybrid model of the two is also possible. Citrix provides mobile apps for ios, Android, BlackBerry OS, and Windows Phone OS. The apps support PDF annotation and built-in mobile editors. Post-acquisition, ShareFile benefits from Citrix s large sales and support team. Challenges Although ShareFile can be natively integrated with Citrix s social collaboration platform Podio, on its own, collaboration capabilities are lacking vis-à-vis other solutions. Deep integration with enterprise applications is limited to Citrix products. It lacks the extensive third-party app store of some of its competitors. 28

29 Citrix ShareFile is a reliable cloud file sharing product that offers unique on-premise or hybrid deployment models Vendor Landscape Product Vendor Overall Features Usability Afford. Arch. Overall Viability Strategy Reach Channel Collaboration Features of Citrix ShareFile Value Index 35 7 th out of 8 Document collaboration Discussions Activity stream No synchronous editing available Available through integration with Citrix Podio Features Available through integration with Citrix Podio Lbry Srv cs Desktop Mobile File Admin User Admin Cont Security Collab Cap Audit/Report App Int Info-Tech Recommends: Those who want the simplicity of cloud file sharing solutions but also wish to keep their data inside internal networks should look into Citrix ShareFile. Their StorageZone concept is unique among CFS vendors, and deserves credit for its innovativeness in meeting the needs of cloud-averse organizations. 29

30 Dropbox is a CFS pioneer and a vendor with a proven track record, but it lacks the enterprise focus most companies need Emerging Player Product: Employees: Headquarters: Website: Founded: Dropbox for Business 220 San Francisco, CA dropbox.com year TCO for this solution falls into pricing tier 5, between $50,000 and $100,000 $1 $2.5M+ Pricing solicited from public sources Overview Dropbox is arguably the pioneer of the cloud file-sharing market. It s the most easily recognized vendor from a consumer perspective. However, its enterprise play is almost an afterthought, and it doesn t stand at competitive parity with more enterprise-focused offerings. Strengths Numerous enterprise applications integrate with Dropbox. Notable examples may include Salesforce.com and Zoho, but the list is not limited to cloud-based solutions. Application integration is not limited to front-end integration such as plug-ins either. Its mature API makes it easy for companies to integrate Dropbox into their custom enterprise applications. Dropbox is extremely well known with end users, and is an easy sell from an adoption angle. Challenges Despite offering Dropbox for Business, Dropbox remains focused on the consumer market. Administrative controls and security functionality aren t on parity with enterprise-exclusive offerings. Despite the long history of integrating with other applications with its great API, Dropbox does not provide a central catalog of enterprise applications that can be integrated. 30

31 Dropbox for Business is a solid product, but needs significant custom integration for true enterprise use Vendor Landscape Product Vendor Overall Features Usability Afford. Arch. Overall Viability Strategy Reach Channel Collaboration Features of Dropbox for Business Value Index 45 6 th out of 8 Document collaboration Discussions Activity stream No synchronous editing available Not available Features Events tab Lbry Srv cs Desktop Mobile File Admin User Admin Cont Security Collab Cap Audit/Report App Int Info-Tech Recommends: Dropbox offers a great end-user product with a proven track record, but the vendor s focus on improving the out-of-the-box enterprise capabilities is lacking. Organizations that place security as top of mind will also want to avoid Dropbox due to security architecture that s not airtight. 31

32 Identify leading candidates with the Cloud File Sharing Vendor Shortlist Tool The Info-Tech Cloud File Sharing Vendor Shortlist Tool is designed to generate a customized shortlist of vendors based on your key priorities. This tool offers the ability to modify: Overall Vendor vs. Product Weightings Individual product criteria weightings: Features Usability Affordability Architecture Individual vendor criteria weightings: Viability Strategy Reach Channel 32

33 Appendix 1. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Overview 2. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Product Selection & Information Gathering 3. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Scoring 4. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation 5. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Fact Check & Publication 6. Product Pricing Scenario 33

34 Vendor Landscape Methodology: Overview Info-Tech s Vendor Landscapes are research materials that review a particular IT market space, evaluating the strengths and abilities of both the products available in that space, as well as the vendors of those products. These materials are created by a team of dedicated analysts operating under the direction of a senior subject matter expert over a period of six weeks. Evaluations weigh selected vendors and their products (collectively solutions ) on the following eight criteria to determine overall standing: Features: The presence of advanced and market-differentiating capabilities. Usability: The intuitiveness, power, and integrated nature of administrative consoles and client software components. Affordability: The three-year total cost of ownership of the solution. Architecture: The degree of integration with the vendor s other tools, flexibility of deployment, and breadth of platform applicability. Viability: The stability of the company as measured by its history in the market, the size of its client base, and its financial performance. Strategy: The commitment to both the market-space, as well as to the various sized clients (small, mid-sized, and enterprise clients). Reach: The ability of the vendor to support its products on a global scale. Channel: The measure of the size of the vendor s channel partner program, as well as any channel strengthening strategies. Evaluated solutions are plotted on a standard two by two matrix: Champions: Both the product and the vendor receive scores that are above the average score for the evaluated group. Innovators: The product receives a score that is above the average score for the evaluated group, but the vendor receives a score that is below the average score for the evaluated group. Market Pillars: The product receives a score that is below the average score for the evaluated group, but the vendor receives a score that is above the average score for the evaluated group. Emerging Players: Both the product and the vendor receive scores that are below the average score for the evaluated group. Info-Tech s Vendor Landscapes are researched and produced according to a strictly adhered to process that includes the following steps: Vendor/product selection Information gathering Vendor/product scoring Information presentation Fact checking Publication This document outlines how each of these steps is conducted. 34

35 Vendor Landscape Methodology: Vendor/Product Selection & Information Gathering Info-Tech works closely with its client base to solicit guidance in terms of understanding the vendors with whom clients wish to work and the products that they wish evaluated; this demand pool forms the basis of the vendor selection process for Vendor Landscapes. Balancing this demand, Info-Tech also relies upon the deep subject matter expertise and market awareness of its Senior, Lead, and Principle Research Analysts to ensure that appropriate solutions are included in the evaluation. As an aspect of that expertise and awareness, Info-Tech s analysts may, at their discretion, determine the specific capabilities that are required of the products under evaluation, and include in the Vendor Landscape only those solutions that meet all specified requirements. Information on vendors and products is gathered in a number of ways via a number of channels. Initially, a request package is submitted to vendors to solicit information on a broad range of topics. The request package includes: A detailed survey. A pricing scenario (see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Price Evaluation and Pricing Scenario, below). A request for reference clients. A request for a briefing and, where applicable, guided product demonstration. These request packages are distributed approximately twelve weeks prior to the initiation of the actual research project to allow vendors ample time to consolidate the required information and schedule appropriate resources. During the course of the research project, briefings and demonstrations are scheduled (generally for one hour each session, though more time is scheduled as required) to allow the analyst team to discuss the information provided in the survey, validate vendor claims, and gain direct exposure to the evaluated products. Additionally, an end-user survey is circulated to Info-Tech s client base and vendor-supplied reference accounts are interviewed to solicit their feedback on their experiences with the evaluated solutions and with the vendors of those solutions. These materials are supplemented by a thorough review of all product briefs, technical manuals, and publicly available marketing materials about the product, as well as about the vendor itself. Refusal by a vendor to supply completed surveys or submit to participation in briefings and demonstrations does not eliminate a vendor from inclusion in the evaluation. Where analyst and client input has determined that a vendor belongs in a particular evaluation, it will be evaluated as best as possible based on publicly available materials only. As these materials are not as comprehensive as a survey, briefing, and demonstration, the possibility exists that the evaluation may not be as thorough or accurate. Since Info-Tech includes vendors regardless of vendor participation, it is always in the vendor s best interest to participate fully. All information is recorded and catalogued, as required, to facilitate scoring and for future reference. 35

36 Vendor Landscape Methodology: Scoring Once all information has been gathered and evaluated for all vendors and products, the analyst team moves to scoring. All scoring is performed at the same time so as to ensure as much consistency as possible. Each criterion is scored on a ten point scale, though the manner of scoring for criteria differs slightly: Features is scored via Cumulative Scoring Affordability is scored via Scalar Scoring All other criteria are scored via Base5 Scoring In Cumulative Scoring, a single point is assigned to each evaluated feature that is regarded as being fully present, partial points to each feature that is partially present, and zero points to features that are deemed to be absent or unsatisfactory. The assigned points are summed and normalized to a value out of ten. For example, if a particular Vendor Landscape evaluates eight specific features in the Feature Criteria, the summed score out of eight for each evaluated product would be multiplied by 1.25 to yield a value out of ten. In Scalar Scoring, a score of ten is assigned to the lowest cost solution, and a score of one is assigned to the highest cost solution. All other solutions are assigned a mathematically determined score based on their proximity to / distance from these two endpoints. For example, in an evaluation of three solutions, where the middle cost solution is closer to the low end of the pricing scale it will receive a higher score, and where it is closer to the high end of the pricing scale it will receive a lower score; depending on proximity to the high or low price it is entirely possible that it could receive either ten points (if it is very close to the lowest price) or one point (if it is very close to the highest price). Where pricing cannot be determined (vendor does not supply price and public sources do not exist), a score of 0 is automatically assigned. In Base5 scoring a number of sub-criteria are specified for each criterion (for example, Longevity, Market Presence, and Financials are subcriteria of the Viability criterion), and each one is scored on the following scale: 5 - The product/vendor is exemplary in this area (nothing could be done to improve the status). 4 - The product/vendor is good in this area (small changes could be made that would move things to the next level). 3 - The product/vendor is adequate in this area (small changes would make it good, more significant changes required to be exemplary). 2 - The product/vendor is poor in this area (this is a notable weakness and significant work is required). 1 - The product/vendor is terrible/fails in this area (this is a glaring oversight and a serious impediment to adoption). The assigned points are summed and normalized to a value out of ten as explained in Cumulative Scoring above. Scores out of ten, known as Raw scores, are transposed as-is into Info-Tech s Vendor Landscape Shortlist Tool, which automatically determines Vendor Landscape positioning (see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation - Vendor Landscape, below), Criteria Score (see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation - Criteria Score, below), and Value Index (see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation - Value Index, below). 36

37 Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation Vendor Landscape Info-Tech s Vendor Landscape is a two-by-two matrix that plots solutions based on the combination of Product score and Vendor score. Placement is not determined by absolute score, but instead by relative score. Relative scores are used to ensure a consistent view of information and to minimize dispersion in nascent markets, while enhancing dispersion in commodity markets to allow for quick visual analysis by clients. Relative scores are calculated as follows: 1. Raw scores are transposed into the Info-Tech Vendor Landscape Shortlist Tool (for information on how Raw scores are determined, see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Scoring, above). 2. Each individual criterion Raw score is multiplied by the pre-assigned weighting factor for the Vendor Landscape in question. Weighting factors are determined prior to the evaluation process to eliminate any possibility of bias. Weighting factors are expressed as a percentage such that the sum of the weighting factors for the Vendor criteria (Viability, Strategy, Reach, Channel) is 100% and the sum of the Product criteria (Features, Usability, Affordability, Architecture) is 100%. 3. A sum-product of the weighted Vendor criteria scores and of the weighted Product criteria scores is calculated to yield an overall Vendor score and an overall Product score. 4. Overall Vendor scores are then normalized to a 20 point scale by calculating the arithmetic mean and standard deviation of the pool of Vendor scores. Vendors for whom their overall Vendor score is higher than the arithmetic mean will receive a normalized Vendor score of (exact value determined by how much higher than the arithmetic mean their overall Vendor score is), while vendors for whom their overall Vendor score is lower than the arithmetic mean will receive a normalized Vendor score of between one and ten (exact value determined by how much lower than the arithmetic mean their overall Vendor score is). 5. Overall Product score is normalized to a 20 point scale according to the same process. 6. Normalized scores are plotted on the matrix, with Vendor score being used as the x-axis, and Product score being used as the y-axis. Vendor Landscape Innovators: solutions with below average Vendor scores and above average Product scores. Emerging Players: solutions with below average Vendor scores and below average Product scores. Champions: solutions with above average Vendor scores and above average Product scores. Market Pillars: solutions with above average Vendor scores and below average Product scores. 37

38 Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation Criteria Scores (Harvey Balls) Info-Tech s Criteria Scores are visual representations of the absolute score assigned to each individual criterion, as well as of the calculated overall Vendor and Product scores. The visual representation used is Harvey Balls. Harvey Balls are calculated as follows: 1. Raw scores are transposed into the Info-Tech Vendor Landscape Shortlist Tool (for information on how Raw scores are determined, see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Scoring, above). 2. Each individual criterion Raw score is multiplied by a pre-assigned weighting factor for the Vendor Landscape in question. Weighting factors are determined prior to the evaluation process, based on the expertise of the Senior or Lead Research Analyst, to eliminate any possibility of bias. Weighting factors are expressed as a percentage, such that the sum of the weighting factors for the Vendor criteria (Viability, Strategy, Reach, Channel) is 100%, and the sum of the Product criteria (Features, Usability, Affordability, Architecture) is 100%. 3. A sum-product of the weighted Vendor criteria scores and of the weighted Product criteria scores is calculated to yield an overall Vendor score and an overall Product score. 4. Both overall Vendor score / overall Product score, as well as individual criterion Raw scores are converted from a scale of one to ten to Harvey Ball scores on a scale of zero to four, where exceptional performance results in a score of four and poor performance results in a score of zero. 5. Harvey Ball scores are converted to Harvey Balls as follows: A score of four becomes a full Harvey Ball. A score of three becomes a three-quarter full Harvey Ball. A score of two becomes a half full Harvey Ball. A score of one becomes a one-quarter full Harvey Ball. A score of zero becomes an empty Harvey Ball. 6. Harvey Balls are plotted by solution in a chart where rows represent individual solutions and columns represent overall Vendor / overall Product, as well as individual criteria. Solutions are ordered in the chart alphabetically by vendor name. Harvey Balls Overall Harvey Balls represent weighted aggregates. Product Vendor Overall Features Usability Afford. Arch. Overall Viability Strategy Reach Channel Criteria Harvey Balls represent individual Raw scores. 38

39 Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation Feature Ranks (Stop Lights) Info-Tech s Feature Ranks are visual representations of the presence/availability of individual features that collectively comprise the Features criterion. The visual representation used is Stop Lights. Stop Lights are determined as follows: 1. A single point is assigned to each evaluated feature that is regarded as being fully present, partial points to each feature that is partially present, and zero points to features that are deemed to be fully absent or unsatisfactory. Fully present means all aspects and capabilities of the feature as described are in evidence. Fully absent means all aspects and capabilities of the feature as described are missing or lacking. Partially present means some, but not all, aspects and capabilities of the feature as described are in evidence, OR all aspects and capabilities of the feature as described are in evidence, but only for some models in a line. 2. Feature scores are converted to Stop Lights as follows: Full points become a Green light. Partial points become a Yellow light. Zero points become a Red light. 3. Stop Lights are plotted by solution in a chart where rows represent individual solutions and columns represent individual features. Solutions are ordered in the chart alphabetically by vendor name. For example, a set of applications is being reviewed and a feature of Integration with Mobile Devices that is defined as availability of dedicated mobile device applications for ios, Android, and BlackBerry devices is specified. Solution A provides such apps for all listed platforms and scores Green, solution B provides apps for ios and Android only and scores Yellow, while solution C provides mobile device functionality through browser extensions, has no dedicated apps, and so scores Red. Stop Lights Green means a feature is fully present; Red, fully absent. Features Feature 1 Feature 2 Feature 3 Feature 4 Feature 5 Feature 6 Feature 7 Feature 8 Yellow shows partial availability (such as in some models in a line). 39