Version chaos across Sites, Teams, and OneDrive. Retention policies that need third-party add-ons to actually work.
If you've been forcing SharePoint into the role of records system, compliance backbone, or long-term content repository, you already know what it costs. Click any card to see the full story below.
SharePoint has no native retention management that works the way records managers need it to. No disposition workflows out of the box. No real records management without expensive add-ons or custom builds on top.
You can configure retention labels in Microsoft 365, but the experience is disconnected from how your business actually classifies documents. Most organizations end up with retention policies that exist on paper but are not enforced in the system.
warningCompliance riskThe same document lives in a SharePoint site, a Teams channel, someone's OneDrive, and an email attachment. SharePoint versioning tracks changes within a single library, but it does nothing about copies spreading across the Microsoft 365 ecosystem.
When an auditor asks "where is the final version of this contract," the honest answer is usually "it depends on who you ask."
sync_problemDuplication riskExtended support for SharePoint Server 2016 and 2019 both end in July 2026. After that, no security patches. The obvious path is SharePoint Online, but that brings storage quotas, API throttling, and reduced customization.
For organizations with data sovereignty requirements, moving to Microsoft's cloud may not be an option. "Wait and see" is not a safe decision.
timer_offDecision deadlineGDPR requires you to classify personal data, apply retention rules, and produce audit trails on demand. Industry regulations in banking, insurance, and government go further. SharePoint does not provide this natively.
You can bolt on Microsoft Purview, but that's another license, another system, and another layer of complexity. Most organizations discover the gaps only when preparing for an audit.
policyRegulatory exposureYour teams collaborate in SharePoint every day. The problem isn't SharePoint. The problem is using SharePoint as the system of record for content that needs governance.
Your teams co-edit documents in Teams and share files in OneDrive every day. That's fine, and replacing it would cause more disruption than it solves.
Content that needs retention policies, classification, audit trails, and compliance controls flows into Uxopian. Content that's just day-to-day collaboration stays in SharePoint.
Users don't need to know where a document physically lives. Uxopian can federate content from SharePoint libraries, applying classification and governance rules to documents that still reside in SharePoint.
Some organizations start by federating SharePoint content and adding governance. Others migrate their most regulated content to Uxopian while keeping SharePoint for collaboration. You're not locked into an all-or-nothing decision.
Not a takedown of SharePoint. An accurate account of what it was designed to do, and where a purpose-built ECM fills the gaps. Click any criterion to expand the comparison.
End of support for SharePoint 2016 and 2019 is not a distant concern. The decision window is now.
Fast2, Uxopian's migration engine, connects to SharePoint Server and moves documents, metadata, permissions, and version histories to the target platform.
Many organizations have SharePoint plus a network file share, plus an old Documentum instance. Fast2 can pull from all of these into a single ECM.
| Site | URL | Docs | Perm. | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finance | /sites/finance | 42,300 | Mapped | Migrated |
| Human Resources | /sites/hr | 18,700 | Mapped | Migrated |
| Legal | /sites/legal | 31,200 | Mapped | Migrating |
| Engineering | /sites/eng | 67,400 | Calculating | Queued |
| Marketing | /sites/marketing | 12,100 | Pending | Queued |
| Board Documents | /sites/board | 3,400 | Pending | Queued |
Each of these maps to a specific gap in SharePoint's ECM story. You don't need all of them, but most organizations hit at least two.