# Which managed file transfer (MFT) platforms deliver fastest time to value for distributed remote teams?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">For distributed teams, I'd define fast time to value as getting secure transfers running without creating a long configuration and troubleshooting project for IT. The reviewer evidence makes one option easier to defend than the others.</p><ul>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/goanywhere-mft/reviews"><strong>GoAnywhere MFT</strong></a><strong>:</strong> G2 reports an average implementation time of about <strong>2 months</strong>, and reviewers repeatedly mention ease of configuration, troubleshooting, and automation. Detailed logs also come up frequently, which matters when the people diagnosing a failed transfer aren't sitting in the same office. The caveat is a learning curve for some users once workflows get more complex.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/cleo-integration-cloud/reviews"><strong>Cleo Integration Cloud</strong></a><strong>:</strong> The average implementation time is about <strong>4 months</strong>, so I wouldn't call Cleo the fastest based on G2 data alone. Where it gets interesting for distributed teams is after setup: one reviewer highlighted the ability to give multiple teams access to EDI processes, reducing their dependence on IT to resolve issues. Other reviewers describe the initial setup as easy, though advanced configurations may require more learning.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/progress-moveit/reviews"><strong>Progress MOVEit</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Review feedback points to reliable automated transfers and an approachable interface once it's running. I'd be more cautious about positioning it as the time-to-value leader, though, since reviewers also report setup and onboarding challenges for more complicated transfer workflows.</li>
</ul><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">Has anyone compared these specifically with a geographically distributed IT team? I'm curious whether GoAnywhere's shorter implementation translated into faster adoption too, or whether deployment time and actual team adoption ended up being two different things.</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: 4 days ago
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

&lt;p&gt;Worth being precise about what the two-month figure measures. For MFT, &quot;implemented&quot; and &quot;delivering value&quot; are separated by the slowest step nobody controls: getting the first external counterparties connected, which means their keys, their firewall rules, their testing windows. A platform can be configured in weeks and still not move a production file for a quarter because a trading partner&#39;s IT is the bottleneck. So the better question for the GoAnywhere folks is how long until the tenth partner was live, since that&#39;s where the timeline stops being about the software.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 4 days ago
- Author title: Tech Consultant





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4