Comparison
Docplume vs SharePoint
Document control without the SharePoint learning curve.
Every row cites the dated source it was read from, and we mark the rows where the other product is genuinely stronger — because a comparison you can’t trust isn’t worth reading.
| Feature | Docplume | SharePoint |
|---|---|---|
|
Version history and audit |
Docplume wins Every save is a numbered version with a full who-did-what audit trail, on every plan. | Versioning is on by default, but a readable cross-library audit trail needs Microsoft Purview (an add-on). |
|
Edit in Microsoft Office |
Opens in the Office you already pay for, scoped to one SharePoint site via Sites.Selected. | SharePoint wins Native — this is Microsoft's own product, so Office editing is first-class. |
|
Setup and administration |
Docplume wins A guided folder-and-permission model you can set up in an afternoon. | Powerful but complex: site collections, hub sites and permission inheritance take real admin time. |
|
EU data residency |
Docplume wins Hosted in Hetzner's EU region, with a sub-processor list published per deployment. | Multi-Geo can pin data to a region, but it is a premium capability and needs configuration. |
|
Owned daily backup |
Docplume wins An optional daily zip of everything with a manifest you can verify offline — a copy that is yours. | Retention and recycle bins exist, but a portable, verifiable export is not a built-in feature. |
|
Breadth of the wider platform |
A focused document platform — it does documents, not intranets or workflows. | SharePoint wins Part of Microsoft 365: intranet pages, Power Automate, Teams and Lists all come with it. |