What this post is
This post compares sFiles and CloudFiles item by item on our published method: every score, where it came from, when we read it, and how much public evidence backs it. The verdict, with the composite scores, is on the comparison page; this is the working behind it.
| Published | Cycle | Arena |
|---|---|---|
| 25 September 2026 | Cycle 1 · sources last read between 16 August and 25 September 2026 | Document management for Salesforce |
→ See the verdict: sFiles vs CloudFiles
→ Every app in this arena, ranked on the same method
How we scored
Both products are scored on the same two-axis matrix, Enterprise Readiness (X) and Functionality (Y), with a Data Reliability check on the evidence itself. Items below carry a one-line summary; How We Compare Salesforce Document Apps sets out the method and defines each Enterprise Readiness item, and How We Score Salesforce Document Management Apps defines every feature. CloudFiles' own evidence for every item, on both axes, is compiled once in CloudFiles for Document Management: The Evidence; each CloudFiles box below gives the difference and cites its sources.
Enterprise Readiness Score (X)
How strongly each product is designed and sold for large organisations, and bought by them, scored 1–5 from four weighted signals. Unless an item names another source, the evidence comes from the vendors' own websites.
Observed buyers
Who actually buys each product, taken from evidence the vendors don't write themselves: the companies behind identified AppExchange reviewers, and the customers each vendor is willing to name.
AppExchange reviewer company sizes
The company size behind each identified AppExchange reviewer, as a read on who actually buys.
Thirty of sFiles' most recent AppExchange reviews were read (all 5★), and five reviewers were matched to a named employer. Two identified themselves in the review text as Salesforce-ecosystem consultants reviewing on a client's behalf, not as the buyer. One wrote, "As a Senior Technical Architect from Salesforce, working for a customer having this product…" The three confirmed buyers work at organisations of roughly 10–50, 51–200 and 201–500 employees, including a mid-size European holding company and a US solar-racking manufacturer.
Once the two consultant reviews are set aside, the confirmed buyers show no enterprise signal.
Identification is by public profile match, not a verified account link.
Last read on 2026-09-22Source – 1
One point higher: four of seven identified reviewers work at organisations of 1,000+ employees, two at 10,001+, against sFiles' three confirmed buyers topping out at 500.
Most identified reviewers sit at large organisations.
Same profile-match method, cross-checked on name, role and review date.
Last read on 2026-09-22Source – 1
Named customers: modal profile
The typical size and sector of the customers each vendor names publicly.
A dedicated case-studies section names four customers: a UK identity-management vendor (51–200 employees), a healthcare supply-chain company (1,001–5,000), a large life-sciences investment firm, and a manufacturing division of a Fortune-200 parent company. Two sizes are confirmed; the other two are large organisations whose own standalone size isn't independently pinned down, and none of the four case studies states a quantified outcome.
Modal profile is mid-to-large, though two of four sizes carry real uncertainty (division vs. parent company).
Sizes came from a general web search of each company's public presence, not a verified LinkedIn read.
One point higher: all twenty of CloudFiles' named customers have an independently confirmed size, with none of the parent-versus-division ambiguity behind two of sFiles' four.
A clear, fully-sized enterprise-modal profile.
Twenty sized names, none in dispute, is enough to read a modal profile.
Where this leaves Observed buyers: CloudFiles reads more enterprise-ready on both signals, though the gap on named customers has narrowed to one point now that sFiles' own case studies have been found.
| Metric | sFiles | CloudFiles |
|---|---|---|
| AppExchange reviewer company sizes | 3 · Mixed, Medium confidence | 4 · Leans high, Medium confidence |
| Named customers: modal profile | 4 · Leans high, Medium confidence | 5 · Highly ready, High confidence |
Commercial & service design
How each product is sold and served once a deal is signed: the billing unit and what the top tier gates, the support on offer, how buyers can try it first, and how visibly the vendor shows up at Salesforce events.
Pricing unit and tiers
How each product is billed, and what its highest tier holds back.
sFiles prices per Salesforce org rather than per seat, in two tiers across three user bands. Standard costs $6,930 a year under 1,000 users, $20,790 for 1,000 to 10,000 users and $55,230 for unlimited users. Enterprise, which gates Experience Cloud access, multiple SharePoint sites and libraries, and Apex-level automation and API use, costs $17,325, $68,775 and $138,075 a year for the same bands. Because every org is priced separately, and Premier Support for code and API help is extra, an enterprise running several Salesforce orgs can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year at list price, before the multi-org discount sFiles offers on request.
A published, gated Enterprise tier is exactly the enterprise-pricing case.
Both tiers, all three user bands and every gate are published on the vendor's own pricing page.
Last read on 2026-09-25Source – 1
One point lower: CloudFiles prices by quote, per org or per user, the sales-led model common in enterprise software; sFiles publishes a price list with a gated Enterprise tier.
Sales-led, quote-based pricing is the standard enterprise-software model, which reads Leans high.
Licensing terms are stated on CloudFiles' pricing pages; prices are set by quote.
Customer support
The channels a customer can use to reach help, and what each vendor commits to.
sFiles pairs a named, US-based Test Drive team for live setup assistance with ticket and email intake, and its Enterprise plan includes priority support, confirmed by a sponsored review. Help with code or the API needs Premier Support, an add-on tier priced on request. No response time, severity tier or 24×7 commitment is published.
Several channels with some live help, but code and API help is an add-on, priced on request. Charging extra for support is a services-business model, not a software-product one, so the rubric scores it Mixed.
Support channels are read directly from each vendor's own pages. There's no second source to corroborate and no precise figure to grade, so Confidence isn't scored for this item.
Two points higher: CloudFiles includes all its support free with every paid plan (live chat, email, and as many live calls with a solution engineer as the implementation needs, including help with Flow, Apex and the API), with nothing sold as an add-on; sFiles needs its Premier Support add-on for code and API help.
Real-time and scheduled help, all included in every plan with nothing sold as an add-on, is the rubric's high case.
Not scored, for the same reason as sFiles.
Conference and webinar presence
Where each vendor appears in the Salesforce event calendar, and at what level.
sFiles' events are community-level. It had a booth at Mile High Dreamin' 2026, a Salesforce community conference in Denver, where its CEO also took the Demo Jam stage, and it co-hosted a demo evening with two other vendors during TDX week in March 2025. During Dreamforce 2026 it posted on LinkedIn but had no booth, sponsorship or session.
A community conference and a vendor meetup, with no Salesforce flagship role, are the rule's mixed case.
Confidence rests on how many events are found: two, a Mile High Dreamin' 2026 booth and Demo Jam, and a co-hosted TDX-week meetup in March 2025.
Two points higher: CloudFiles has exhibited at six Salesforce flagship events in two years, including Dreamforce 2024 to 2026 and three World Tours, against sFiles' community-level presence.
Repeated flagship sponsorships with booths and theatre sessions: the rule's high case.
Six flagship events found across two years, with booth and session detail for five and one confirmed by Salesforce's own Dreamforce account.
Hands-on evaluation
How a buyer can try each product before committing.
sFiles' pricing page offers a free trial (Start Your Free Trial, Get Started For Free), and a named, US-based Test Drive team helps with setup. No public guide to a test drive was found.
A self-serve free trial with an assisted test drive, but no public guide, reads Leans high.
Read from sFiles' own pricing page and AppExchange listing.
One point higher: a Try It button on every CloudFiles AppExchange listing opens a pre-configured test drive org with nothing to install, and CloudFiles documents a guided test drive for each product.
A documented, no-install test drive with a guide for each product is the rubric's high case.
The test drive opens from the AppExchange listing and is documented in CloudFiles' help centre.
Where this leaves Commercial & service design: sFiles publishes a price list. CloudFiles leads on support, hands-on evaluation and flagship events, with all help included in every paid plan and a documented, no-install test drive.
| Metric | sFiles | CloudFiles |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing unit and tiers | 5 · Highly ready, High confidence | 4 · Leans high, Medium confidence |
| Customer support | 3 · Mixed, confidence not scored | 5 · Highly ready, confidence not scored |
| Conference and webinar presence | 3 · Mixed, Medium confidence | 5 · Highly ready, High confidence |
| Hands-on evaluation | 4 · Leans high, Medium confidence | 5 · Highly ready, High confidence |
Technical design
What each product is built to sell into, read from its compliance claims and what backs them, the depth of its public documentation, and its developer access.
Security & Compliances
The certifications each vendor claims, and whether anything outside its own word backs them.
sFiles' AppExchange listing describes it as the "Only FedRAMP Compliant solution," but no matching sFiles or Upsource Solutions record appears on the official FedRAMP Marketplace. No security or trust page, DPA or other checkable artifact was found. The claim rests on the listing copy alone, and it isn't clear whether it describes sFiles itself or an inherited, architecture-level authorization.
A specific claim is made, but it can't be verified on the Marketplace and nothing else backs it, so it reads Mixed, not high.
Corroboration is the only factor that applies here, and nothing outside the listing's own words confirms the claim.
Two points higher: CloudFiles says it is independently audited for SOC 2 Type II, holds ISO 27001/27017/27018 certification, and HIPAA compliance with BAAs, backed by a public GDPR DPA and an available Trust Portal, while sFiles' one compliance claim can't be confirmed anywhere outside its own listing.
Audited SOC 2 Type II plus ISO and HIPAA certification, backed by a public DPA and Trust Portal, is the rule's definition of high.
The DPA and Trust Portal are checkable outside CloudFiles' own word, and the SOC 2 Type II report is shared under NDA.
Help-doc architecture
How complete and searchable each vendor's public documentation is.
sFiles' public knowledge base spans 230 articles across 37 topics, covering setup, admin, authentication, security, developer reference (API, Flows, platform events), troubleshooting and a six-year release-note trail, plus a separate API reference site.
A full, organised doc system covering every area the rule asks for.
An exact count from sFiles' own topic catalog.
Tied at Highly ready: CloudFiles' help center is the larger of the two, with 492 indexed pages against sFiles' 230 articles.
A full, organised doc system covering every area the rule asks for, and the largest measured set.
Counted from CloudFiles' sitemap and machine-readable index: an exact figure.
API depth and gating
The REST API and Apex client each vendor offers developers, and any pricing gate on them.
sFiles documents both a REST surface (exposed through Salesforce Apex REST) and a 47-method Apex ClientApi across 9 classes, plus 14 platform events. All of it is gated to the Enterprise tier.
Both a REST surface and an Apex client exist (the rule's "both" case), and gating a capability that exists doesn't lower the score under this rule.
Method and class totals come straight from sFiles' API reference.
Tied on capability, not on access: CloudFiles publishes the same pair ungated on every plan, while sFiles gates the entire surface behind its Enterprise tier.
Both developer surfaces published, nothing gated: the rule's high case.
Endpoint and method totals are taken straight from CloudFiles' developer reference.
Where this leaves Technical design: sFiles matches CloudFiles on documentation depth and API reach, but its single compliance claim is unconfirmed and its API is gated to the Enterprise tier. CloudFiles reads uniformly strong across all three signals.
| Metric | sFiles | CloudFiles |
|---|---|---|
| Security & Compliances | 3 · Mixed, Low confidence | 5 · Highly ready, High confidence |
| Help-doc architecture | 5 · Highly ready, High confidence | 5 · Highly ready, High confidence |
| API depth and gating | 5 · Highly ready, High confidence | 5 · Highly ready, High confidence |
Messaging & ecosystem
Who each vendor says it serves and how far that claim travels beyond its own site: messaging focus, named partners, the make-up of its team, and its footprint on review platforms.
Stated ICP and messaging focus
Who each vendor's marketing says the product is for, and how narrow that pitch is.
sFiles' messaging targets Salesforce organisations that want to keep SharePoint as their storage system without leaving Salesforce, naming four verticals (education, financial services, government and manufacturing) plus a cost-and-governance pitch. No customer names or personas are attached to the claim.
Four verticals span more than one segment type: an "any team" breadth case, not a narrow enterprise focus.
Only Precision applies here, and the claim is reasonably specific without being narrow.
One point higher: CloudFiles' Salesforce pages name the buyer, enterprise teams in regulated industries and their IT and security teams, where sFiles names four verticals and no persona.
Messaging leans towards enterprise buyers in regulated industries and their IT and security teams, with broader industry pages alongside.
The buyer, industries and use cases are named precisely on CloudFiles' Salesforce pages.
Partner ecosystem
The integrators and consultancies each vendor names as partners, and whether they confirm it.
sFiles' maker, Upsource Solutions, runs a partner page, but it renders no directory or named-partner content. Upsource is the vendor itself, a boutique Salesforce consultancy, not a third-party partner. No independent SI naming an sFiles relationship was found.
A partner page exists in name, but the actual ecosystem is Upsource running its own product, not third-party SIs adopting it.
No partner is named to grade Precision on, and nothing exists to corroborate.
Two points higher: CloudFiles' partner page names nine implementation partners and six global integrators it has delivered customer projects with, and an IT consultancy names CloudFiles as a partner on its own channels; sFiles' page names none.
A formal programme with nine named implementation partners, plus delivery with global integrators, reads Leans high.
One partner confirms the relationship on its own channels, and CloudFiles names many more on its partner page.
Team mix
The spread of sales, success and support roles on each vendor's LinkedIn page, and the regions covered.
sFiles' maker, Upsource Solutions, lists 19 associated LinkedIn members with Business Development and Sales among its top five functions; the sFiles product page separately lists 11 members with a similar Sales/BD mix. The two sets overlap, and nearly all members are based in the United States.
Sales and Business Development presence is real on both pages, though thinner than CloudFiles' and largely single-region.
Two independent LinkedIn pages agree on the band and function mix.
One point higher: CloudFiles' team combines an even mix of business and technical roles with coverage across time zones, rather than being concentrated in one.
A strong, even mix of business and technical roles, spread across time zones for round-the-clock coverage.
The function mix and regions are read from CloudFiles' LinkedIn page.
Review-site profile richness
How complete each vendor's G2, Capterra and TrustRadius profiles are.
A real, claimed G2 listing exists for sFiles, but it is nearly bare: zero reviews, no video, a single category and no integrations panel. No Capterra listing was found under either name, and no TrustRadius profile exists.
Real presence on none of the three platforms in any meaningful way: the thinnest profile in the set.
Neither Precision nor Corroboration applies. This item counts platform presence; it doesn't grade a claim.
Three points higher: CloudFiles has profiles on G2, Capterra and TrustRadius, led by a claimed G2 profile with 227 reviews and a product video.
Profiles on all three sites, led by a rich, actively maintained G2 profile.
Neither Precision nor Corroboration applies to this item.
Where this leaves Messaging & ecosystem: CloudFiles reads more enterprise-ready on all four: messaging aimed at enterprise buyers in regulated industries, partners, team reach and review-site presence.
| Metric | sFiles | CloudFiles |
|---|---|---|
| Stated ICP and messaging focus | 3 · Mixed, Medium confidence | 4 · Leans high, High confidence |
| Partner ecosystem | 2 · Leans low, Low confidence | 4 · Leans high, Medium confidence |
| Team mix | 4 · Leans high, High confidence | 5 · Highly ready, High confidence |
| Review-site profile richness | 1 · Not ready, confidence not scored | 4 · Leans high, confidence not scored |
Features Score (Y)
How complete each product is across the feature map's four scored categories, each feature rated on a five-rung ladder from Absent to Extended, with Dealbreaker features able to gate the whole score: each must reach L4. The score itself is the average rung across the eighteen features, weighted by Kano class (Dial 3, Delighter 2, Dealbreaker 1, Distractor 0), on a 1–5 scale. Each card gives the rung and why the evidence lands there, the feature's Kano class and, where it applies, an automation rating. Features are read from each vendor's own help documentation and product pages and filled in as they clear Data Review; unfilled rows are not yet scored, not assumed absent.
Storage Support
The storage behind each product: how far it reaches into the storage's own features, and how easily a user can browse and search what's stored there.
Storage Depth Kano · Dial
Control over storage-specific features, beyond what every storage shares.
In-app configuration of custom SharePoint columns is listed on the AppExchange page and confirmed by a sponsored review, and sFiles' Enterprise tier connects multiple SharePoint sites and document libraries. Content types, the term store, document sets, minor versions and content approval don't appear.
Custom columns and multiple sites are real SharePoint-specific control, but two features fall well short of most of SharePoint's list, which Complete asks for.
Custom SharePoint columns, including choice, date and lookup types, can be set in Flow and Apex, and Apex lists document libraries; sites, drives and content types can't be automated, so it stops at Complete.
One rung higher: CloudFiles controls most SharePoint-specific features from Salesforce (sites, drives and Microsoft Teams from templates, six column types and their defaults, property search and SharePoint events), plus Google Drive shared drives and S3 bucket prefixes with automatic sync.
Most of SharePoint's storage-specific features are controlled from Salesforce, with specific controls on Google Drive and S3 too, which is Complete.
Flow and Apex can create SharePoint sites and drives from templates, with design, language, admins and default columns, which reaches well past setting properties on existing content.
Browse Library Kano · Delighter
Browsing the whole storage library from Salesforce, not just one record's files.
An embedded folder browser exposes real file and folder operations (rename, delete, download, open), which a sponsored review confirms, but no saved views or bulk selection were found.
A browsable library with working file and folder operations is the full feature; nothing beyond it, such as saved views or bulk selection, was found to take it higher.
Browsing the library is something a person does on screen, so there is no automated version of it to rate.
One rung higher: a standalone Content Library tab browses six storage providers with nested folders, and List Actions add checkbox-based bulk selection on top of the same file operations.
The library browsing itself matches sFiles; checkbox bulk selection is the extra that moves it up a rung.
Search Kano · Dial
Finding external files from Salesforce, and how far the results can be filtered.
In-app search exists but rides entirely on SharePoint's own native search, described as "basic" with no tag-based search or filtering options documented anywhere.
Users can search, but with no filtering added on top of SharePoint's native search the results can't be narrowed, which keeps it from counting as a complete search feature.
A folder-scoped search runs in both Flow and Apex, with an optional subfolder toggle, and matches keywords against every SharePoint column rather than names alone, which goes past a basic search.
Two rungs higher: beyond a sub-folder-aware search bar, a documented Flow action searches by resource metadata, filtering results by tag rather than filename alone.
Filtering by tag and metadata is the refinement a basic search bar lacks, and it is enough to reach the top rung.
Keyword and metadata search both run from Flow and Apex, and the REST API searches across twelve storages.
Where this leaves Storage Support: sFiles reads Limited on storage depth and search; browsing the library is its one Complete. CloudFiles reaches Extended on browsing and search, and Complete on storage depth. On automation, both reach Extended on search, and CloudFiles also on storage depth.
| Feature | Kano | sFiles rung | CloudFiles rung |
|---|---|---|---|
| Storage Depth | Dial | L3 · Limited | L4 · Complete |
| Browse Library | Delighter | L4 · Complete | L5 · Extended |
| Search | Dial | L3 · Limited | L5 · Extended |
Basic Ops
The everyday operations a user expects to run on stored files without leaving Salesforce: uploading and downloading, previewing, opening the original, and renaming, deleting, moving and copying.
Ingestion Kano · Dealbreaker
Getting files and folders from Salesforce into storage, and any limits on the way.
Native Lightning upload and folder creation carry no documented restrictions; the only size limit found (around 11MB) sits on a separate Flow/API automation path, not the primary upload route.
Uploads and folder creation on the main route have no restrictions, and the automation path's cap doesn't pull that down; nothing beyond plain upload, such as folder upload, was found.
Upload and folder creation run from both Flow and code, which covers the operation; code uploads are capped at 4–11 MB, and nothing goes beyond the basics.
One rung higher: whole-folder drag-and-drop upload is backed by dedicated batch and async Flow automation, beyond a single manual upload.
Uploading a whole folder is one of the extras the top rung looks for, and batch automation adds another.
Upload and folder creation run from Flow and Apex with extras on top: asynchronous folder creation, batch copying of Salesforce Files into storage, and several ways to handle duplicate names.
Last read on 2026-09-08Sources – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Preview Kano · Delighter
Viewing a file inside Salesforce without downloading it.
No inline preview appears anywhere in the evidence. Viewing a file means redirecting to SharePoint or Office Online instead.
The file never opens inside Salesforce; sending the user out to SharePoint or Office Online to view it gets them there, but only as a workaround.
Previewing is a person looking at a file, which a flow or code has no part in.
Three rungs higher: inline preview inside Salesforce is the default, with thumbnails and an allowDownload control on the preview API.
Previewing inside Salesforce would already be Complete; thumbnails and a download control on top are the extras that make it Extended.
Last read on 2026-09-08Sources – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Original Access Kano · Dial
Getting from a Salesforce record to the source file in storage.
An "Open in SharePoint" action reaches the original file in one dropdown click, confirmed by a sponsored review, but no target-editor choice or click customisation is documented.
One click to the original is all Complete requires; choosing between editors, the step up to Extended, isn't offered.
Opening the original in its storage is a click from the interface, with no automated equivalent.
Tied at Complete: both open the original in one click; CloudFiles also opens folders.
Both open the original file in one click; CloudFiles also opens folders, which sFiles doesn't document.
Last read on 2026-09-08Source – 1
Download Kano · Dealbreaker
Retrieving files from storage without leaving Salesforce.
Any file type downloads individually through a secure generated link, but no bulk, folder or multi-select download appears anywhere in the evidence.
Any file downloads, so the core need is fully met; without bulk or folder download it stops a rung short of the top.
Download is scored as a user getting a file back out of storage, so it isn't rated for automation.
One rung higher: a multi-select bulk action downloads several files or whole folders at once, shown in the documentation's own screenshots.
Bulk and folder download are exactly what separates the top rung from complete single-file download.
Last read on 2026-09-08Source – 1
Rename Kano · Delighter
Renaming files and folders from Salesforce.
File rename from the dropdown is independently confirmed; folder rename is claimed only on the vendor's own listing, so it isn't counted.
Complete needs both files and folders, and only file rename is confirmed; a vendor-only claim for folders isn't enough to close that gap.
Files and folders can be renamed from Flow and from Apex, which covers the operation; nothing goes beyond a plain rename.
One rung higher: rename is a native action for both files and folders, and a List Action can add bulk rename.
Covering folders as well as files is what sFiles lacks for Complete.
Flow, Apex and the REST API all rename files and folders.
Delete Kano · Delighter
Deleting stored files and folders from inside Salesforce.
Files can be deleted from a dropdown, subject to SharePoint permissions, but deleting a folder is never documented.
With file deletion shown and folder deletion never documented, only half of what Complete requires is in evidence.
SharePoint items can be deleted in Flow and in Apex, a straightforward delete with nothing more.
One rung higher: files and folders can both be deleted from the record widget, shown in a demo, and a List Action can add bulk delete.
With folder deletion documented alongside files, it meets Complete.
Flow can remove files, folders or an entire SharePoint drive, and Apex deletes many items in one call, which goes beyond single deletes.
Move / Copy Kano · Delighter
Relocating or duplicating files and folders without leaving Salesforce.
There is no native move or copy action in the app. Moving files takes SharePoint Object Settings configuration or custom API and Apex work.
Configuration and custom code can move files, but nothing inside the app does it for the user, so it only counts as a workaround.
Move and copy both run in Flow and Apex, and a copy can land in a different document library under a new name, which goes beyond a plain move.
Two rungs higher: move works on single items and in bulk, with a destination picker and conflict handling, and copy runs through Flow.
Moves with a destination picker and conflict handling cover Complete.
Move and copy run in Flow and Apex on files and folders, and Apex can also move items between drives; both products reach the top rung.
Where this leaves Basic Ops: sFiles clears both Dealbreakers, Ingestion and Download, at Complete. Past those it thins out: Delete and Rename stop at Limited because folders aren't covered, and Preview and Move / Copy only work through a workaround. CloudFiles reaches Extended on both Dealbreakers and on Preview, and Complete on the other four, drawing level with sFiles only on Original Access. On automation, CloudFiles is a rung ahead on Ingestion and Delete, and the two tie on Move / Copy at Extended and on Rename at Complete.
| Feature | Kano | sFiles rung | CloudFiles rung |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ingestion | Dealbreaker | L4 · Complete | L5 · Extended |
| Preview | Delighter | L2 · Workaround | L5 · Extended |
| Original Access | Dial | L4 · Complete | L4 · Complete |
| Download | Dealbreaker | L4 · Complete | L5 · Extended |
| Rename | Delighter | L3 · Limited | L4 · Complete |
| Delete | Delighter | L3 · Limited | L4 · Complete |
| Move / Copy | Delighter | L2 · Workaround | L4 · Complete |
Advanced Ops
Capabilities past basic file handling that separate a connector from a document system: editing files, version history, per-user permissions, metadata, and keeping Salesforce and storage in sync.
File Edit Kano · Delighter
Changing a document from Salesforce, and whose editor does the work.
An Edit action appears on the AppExchange listing, but the evidence points to it opening the file in SharePoint or Office Online rather than editing it inside Salesforce.
The Edit button gives a direct route to editing, but the editing happens outside Salesforce, which is what Complete requires.
Editing a document's contents is done by a person in an editor, not by a flow or code.
Versioning Kano · Distractor
Seeing and acting on a file's version history from Salesforce.
Versioning is left entirely to SharePoint; the sFiles component has no version button or history view, so users open the file in SharePoint to see its versions.
The history exists, but only in SharePoint, and the app adds no control of its own to reach it.
Rated on viewing version history in the interface, which isn't an operation to automate.
Last read on 2026-08-31Source – 1
Permissions Kano · Dealbreaker
Whether each user sees only what their storage access allows, and how much Salesforce can control.
Each user's SharePoint permissions are inherited and enforced inside Salesforce, but there's no Salesforce-side permission model for controlling access in finer detail.
Enforcing each user's own SharePoint access is real user-level handling, but with no granular control from Salesforce it falls short of Complete.
Flow and Apex can grant and revoke each user's SharePoint access and create sharing links with a chosen scope and recipients, which goes beyond basic permission setting.
One rung higher: more than ten assignable Salesforce custom permissions sit on top of each user's own storage permissions, and Flow and Apex grant or revoke access at site, drive, folder or file level.
Granular control from the Salesforce side is what sFiles lacks and what Complete asks for.
Owner, read or write access can be granted or revoked in Flow and Apex across nine storages, at site, drive, folder or file level, for users or groups.
Metadata Kano · Delighter
Reading and writing file properties and columns from Salesforce.
Status and record ID are tagged onto files automatically, and custom SharePoint columns can be configured from the app. Anything deeper takes Apex or API work.
Metadata can be both read and written from the app, which is what Complete needs; going further relies on custom code rather than a built-in way around SharePoint's API limits.
Flow and Apex write text, number, choice, date and lookup columns and read their values back, which covers the operation fully.
One rung higher: a View Metadata dialog and Get and Set Resource Property actions read and write metadata, and a documented workaround covers column types the storage API can't set.
Read and write access is the Complete baseline; a documented way past the storage API's own limits is what the top rung is for.
Flow and Apex read, write and search metadata, setting six SharePoint column types (single and multiple lines of text, number, yes/no, date and time, and choice), with a batch action for many files at once.
2-way sync Kano · Delighter
Keeping Salesforce and storage in step in both directions.
Changes made in SharePoint only show up in Salesforce after a user clicks Refresh in the widget. No automatic sync, in either direction, is documented.
The two sides do line up, but only when a person refreshes, so the syncing is manual rather than something the product does.
Sync already runs without anyone starting it, so there is no separate automation layer to rate.
Last read on 2026-08-31Source – 1
Where this leaves Advanced Ops: Both products edit through the storage's own editor and leave version history to the storage, so they tie on File Edit and Versioning. The rest separates them: CloudFiles adds Salesforce-side permissions (Complete against Limited), works past the storage API on metadata (Extended against Complete), and syncs instantly where sFiles needs a manual refresh. On automation, both reach Extended on Permissions, and CloudFiles leads by a rung on Metadata.
| Feature | Kano | sFiles rung | CloudFiles rung |
|---|---|---|---|
| File Edit | Delighter | L3 · Limited | L3 · Limited |
| Versioning | Distractor | L2 · Workaround | L2 · Workaround |
| Permissions | Dealbreaker | L3 · Limited | L4 · Complete |
| Metadata | Delighter | L4 · Complete | L5 · Extended |
| 2-way sync | Delighter | L2 · Workaround | L5 · Extended |
Salesforce Support
How each product holds up across Salesforce surfaces beyond the Lightning desktop: external users in Experience Cloud portals, orgs still running Classic, and the Salesforce mobile app.
Experience Cloud Support Kano · Delighter
Letting external portal users work with files, and on what licence terms.
Without an extra licence, external users get upload, download and folder browsing through one shared SharePoint account. The vendor says the full feature set needs each external user to hold their own Microsoft 365 account.
External users can work in the portal, but the full feature set means licensing each of them in Microsoft 365, the kind of gate that holds it below Complete.
There is no dedicated action for sharing with portal users; visibility is set indirectly by writing a column value, which only partly covers the task.
Two rungs higher: portal users can edit and replace files as well as upload, download and preview them, with no storage licence needed, and admins control seven actions per user.
Editing by portal users, per-user action controls and view tracking are each beyond the basic upload, download and preview that Complete asks for.
Dedicated Flow and Apex actions share, unshare and list files for portal users.
Classic Support Kano · Distractor
Support for orgs still running Salesforce Classic.
A documented Visualforce and Lightning Out wrapper renders the full sFiles component in Classic, but setup means one manual Visualforce page per object, and no vendor source states feature parity.
The component does render in Classic, but with nothing saying everything works there, full parity is unproven and it stays at Limited.
This is about which Salesforce interface the product renders in, not an operation that can be automated.
One rung higher: a first-party help article documents a Visualforce wrapper that renders the same widget in Classic.
CloudFiles' own documentation says Classic gets the same widget as Lightning, the parity statement sFiles lacks.
Mobile Compatibility Kano · Distractor
How each product behaves in the Salesforce mobile app.
The AppExchange listing claims mobile optimisation for Salesforce Mobile and Field Service Mobile, and its media shows an adapted layout. Sharing by email link is the one gap reported; there's no camera capture, offline access or mobile bulk action.
An adapted mobile layout, with only email-link sharing missing, covers the core operations; mobile-only extras such as camera capture or offline access would be needed for the top rung.
Whether the product renders in the mobile app is a question of interface, not of automation.
Last read on 2026-08-31Source – 1
Tied at Complete: CloudFiles' help centre lists the file operations that work in the Salesforce mobile app and Field Service Mobile: browsing, previewing, uploading files and photos, downloading and opening files in storage.
The core file operations are documented for the mobile app, which is Complete.
Where this leaves Salesforce Support: CloudFiles leads on Experience Cloud and Classic, documenting what sFiles gates behind extra licences or leaves unstated, and the two tie on Mobile at Complete. On automation, CloudFiles edges ahead on Experience Cloud, with dedicated share and unshare actions where sFiles writes a column value.
| Feature | Kano | sFiles rung | CloudFiles rung |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experience Cloud Support | Delighter | L3 · Limited | L5 · Extended |
| Classic Support | Distractor | L3 · Limited | L4 · Complete |
| Mobile Compatibility | Distractor | L4 · Complete | L4 · Complete |
Industry Cloud Support isn't scored in this comparison.
Data Reliability Score
The same three questions are asked of every item that feeds either score: is it public, who publishes it, and is it a checkable fact. Each component is averaged over the 31 items, and the Data Reliability Score is the average of the three.
| sFiles | CloudFiles | |
|---|---|---|
| Score · band | 76% · Well documented | 91% · Well documented |
| Coverage: is it public at all? | 95% | 97% |
| Independence: who publishes it? | 65% | 87% |
| Precision: is it a checkable fact? | 69% | 89% |
| What is public · what is not | Twelve of the eighteen feature ratings also cite customer reviews on AppExchange or independent write-ups; Rename, Delete, Versioning, 2-way sync, Classic Support and Mobile Compatibility rest on a sponsored review on sfapps.info or the AppExchange listing. Reviewer sizes, events and the compliance claim are only partly public: there is no security page, DPA or FedRAMP record. | All thirteen Enterprise Readiness items cite customer reviews, review sites or independent company profiles, and fourteen of the eighteen feature ratings cite customer reviews on AppExchange or independent consultancy write-ups, alongside CloudFiles' public security page, DPA and Trust Portal. |
Item by item: Coverage · Independence · Precision
Coverage: Found 1 · Partly 0.5 · Not public 0. Independence: third party, registry or marketplace data 1 · vendor copy on a platform, including sponsored reviews and branded articles, 0.5 · the vendor's own site or its maker's other products 0, taking the most independent source cited for the item. Precision: High 1 · Medium 0.5 · Low 0.25, and “n/a” where no precise figure is expected.
| Item | sFiles | CloudFiles |
|---|---|---|
| AppExchange reviewer company sizes | 0.5 · 1 · 0.5 | 0.5 · 1 · 0.5 |
| Named customers: modal profile | 1 · 0 · 0.5 | 1 · 1 · 1 |
| Pricing unit and tiers | 1 · 0 · 1 | 0.5 · 1 · 0.5 |
| Customer support | 1 · 0.5 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Conference and webinar presence | 0.5 · 0.5 · 0.5 | 1 · 1 · 1 |
| Hands-on evaluation | 1 · 0.5 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Security & Compliances | 0.5 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Help-doc architecture | 1 · 0 · 1 | 1 · 1 · 1 |
| API depth and gating | 1 · 0 · 1 | 1 · 1 · 1 |
| Stated ICP and messaging focus | 1 · 0 · 0.5 | 1 · 1 · 1 |
| Partner ecosystem | 1 · 0 · 0.25 | 1 · 1 · 1 |
| Team mix | 1 · 0.5 · 1 | 1 · 1 · 1 |
| Review-site profile richness | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Storage Depth | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Browse Library | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Search | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Ingestion | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Preview | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Original Access | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 0 · n/a |
| Download | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 0 · n/a |
| Rename | 1 · 0.5 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Delete | 1 · 0.5 · n/a | 1 · 0 · n/a |
| Move / Copy | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| File Edit | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Versioning | 1 · 0.5 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Permissions | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Metadata | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| 2-way sync | 1 · 0.5 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Experience Cloud Support | 1 · 1 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
| Classic Support | 1 · 0.5 · n/a | 1 · 0 · n/a |
| Mobile Compatibility | 1 · 0.5 · n/a | 1 · 1 · n/a |
The score reflects how much each vendor publishes, not how good the vendor is.
What changed
- 2026-09-29 · Method: Mobile Compatibility no longer counts sharing, because this arena scores document management, not sharing. No rating changed.
- 2026-09-28 · Re-read: nine CloudFiles Enterprise Readiness items now also cite independent sources: customer reviews on AppExchange, review sites and company-data profiles. CloudFiles Independence is now 87% and its Data Reliability Score 91%.
- 2026-09-28 · Method: Stated ICP is read from the pages for the product being compared, so a multi-product vendor's company homepage is no longer read. Re-read: CloudFiles stated ICP, now 4 · Leans high.
- 2026-09-28 · Method: Storages Supported and Document stack coverage are no longer scored. Hands-on evaluation joins Commercial & service design. Customer support now counts support sold as an add-on against the score. Storage Depth is judged on a major storage, and single sign-on is no longer a required help-doc area. Re-read: CloudFiles storage depth, search and metadata automation, and mobile; sFiles storage depth.
- 2026-09-25 · Functionality is now the Kano-weighted average rung on a 1–5 scale, replacing the share of features at L4–L5. No rating changed.
- 2026-09-25 · Baseline: this is the first cycle, so there is no earlier score to compare against. This post replaces our earlier sFiles vs CloudFiles comparison, which scored both products on a different matrix without per-item sources.