Cloud CMS announced today that it has added support for CMIS. This is a nice addition for all sorts of reasons, but near the top from Cloud CMS’s perspective is that it makes it easier to migrate content from existing solutions into the Cloud CMS repository.

Back in November I did a series of reviews on content-as-a-service providers. One of my posts was on Cloud CMS. The post assumes you are looking for hosted content-as-a-service and shows how Cloud CMS compares to other cloud offerings.

What I think we’re going start seeing more and more, however, are people who might consider Cloud CMS as an alternative to traditional on-premises ECM vendors like Alfresco, Nuxeo, Documentum, and Microsoft. Although Cloud CMS was originally built to be a hosted, content-centric, back-end for mobile and web applications, it can just as easily function as your hosted intranet or document management repository.

With custom content models, event triggers, and custom workflows, you may find that the only difference between Cloud CMS and your current on-premises document repository is that you don’t have to worry about software or hardware installation and upgrades any longer.

Considering Cloud CMS as an alternative to traditional players may make sense when:

1. A 100% cloud-native solution is preferred. While Cloud CMS could be run on-premises it is certainly built to be hosted on your behalf. Plus, one of the benefits of letting Cloud CMS run, upgrade, and scale your repository is so you don’t have to.
2. Customization is important. Some of the traditional vendors have made cloud add-ons for their products, but they then lock down the content model and the user interface so that it cannot be customized. Cloud CMS offers the benefits of hassle-free operations while maintaining your ability to customize it to meet your exact requirements.
3. Budget is constrained. Clients who need enterprise-grade features and the peace of mind that a support contract brings but can’t justify the high cost of a traditional vendor’s enterprise license may find Cloud CMS to be a lower-cost alternative. Rather than licensing by the seat or the server, Cloud CMS cost is based on how and how much you use the system.

Clients who have very straightforward needs (simple file sync and share, for example) will probably choose something a little more utilitarian, like Google Drive, Box, Dropbox, or Amazon Zocalo. And, despite Cloud CMS recently having undergone an extensive security audit, I know some clients may still be reluctant to move to the cloud. Everyone else, though, should take a hard look at Cloud CMS.