In my post a couple days back about the CMS Watch review of major CMS platforms, one reader commented that my numbers were incorrect. So I reviewed it and found something interesting - CMS Watch changed parts of its review! For example, whereas Plone was not originally listed as specifically "lagging" in any category, now it's listed as lagging in "Repository Services". I'm not sure what else changed, but I thought it would be a good idea to re-run the numbers and publish what I found.
Plone still came out with the highest score by the way...
| Platform | Kudos | HM | Lagging | Score |
| Plone | 2 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Clickability | 1 | 3 | 3 | -1 |
| CrownPeak | 1 | 6 | 5 | -2 |
| Day | 2 | 4 | 5 | -2 |
| FatWire | 2 | 1 | 4 | -3 |
| Hot Banana | 0 | 4 | 4 | -4 |
| Mediasurface | 1 | 2 | 4 | -4 |
| EPiServer | 0 | 1 | 3 | -5 |
| Hannon Hill | 1 | 1 | 4 | -5 |
| Oracle/Stellent | 1 | 3 | 5 | -5 |
| RedDot | 1 | 3 | 5 | -5 |
| Tridion | 3 | 1 | 6 | -5 |
| e-Spirit | 1 | 0 | 4 | -6 |
| Ektron | 1 | 1 | 5 | -7 |
| Escenic | 0 | 1 | 4 | -7 |
| Midgard | 0 | 1 | 4 | -7 |
| Serena | 1 | 1 | 5 | -7 |
| CoreMedia | 0 | 2 | 5 | -8 |
| Ingeniux | 0 | 2 | 5 | -8 |
| Interwoven | 1 | 4 | 7 | -8 |
| PaperThin | 0 | 2 | 5 | -8 |
| Percussion | 1 | 2 | 6 | -8 |
| Refresh Software | 0 | 2 | 5 | -8 |
| eZ Publish | 0 | 1 | 5 | -9 |
| GOSS | 0 | 1 | 5 | -9 |
| Immediacy | 0 | 1 | 5 | -9 |
| TYPO3 | 0 | 3 | 6 | -9 |
| eZ Systems | 0 | 0 | 5 | -10 |
| TerminalFour | 0 | 0 | 5 | -10 |
| WebSideStory | 1 | 0 | 6 | -10 |
| Drupal | 2 | 2 | 9 | -12 |
| Enonic | 0 | 0 | 6 | -12 |
| IBM | 2 | 2 | 9 | -12 |
| Documentum | 0 | 3 | 8 | -13 |
| Joomla! | 1 | 1 | 8 | -13 |
| Sitecore | 2 | 3 | 10 | -13 |
| Vignette | 0 | 1 | 7 | -13 |
| OpenCMS | 0 | 0 | 7 | -14 |
| Microsoft | 0 | 5 | 10 | -15 |
| Alfresco | 1 | 2 | 10 | -16 |
Great recap.
So what exactly is 'repository services' anyway?
Posted by: Eric Steele | June 14, 2007 at 04:46 PM
It'd be interesting to weight the scores against their scenarios, to come up with total scores for particular applications.
I wish CMS would publish their scenario definitions.
Posted by: Mike | June 14, 2007 at 05:27 PM
Thanks for summarizing this, Scott! It's great to see Plone getting the recognition it so richly deserves! If you haven't already submitted this as a news item on Plone.org, you oughta! It's a great opportunity for some hard-earned horn-tootin'. ;-)
Posted by: Jon Stahl | June 14, 2007 at 09:37 PM