Home / Compare / vs Iron Mountain / Access
Comparison

Fileport vs Iron Mountain / Access

Replace a metered archive with one governed, searchable source of truth and unlimited retrieval — at a fraction of the multi-year cost.

Where Iron Mountain / Access is a fair choice

Physical storage, scanning, and chain-of-custody for paper and regulated archives at massive scale.

Where it falls short

It's storage, not intelligence: documents stay dark, search is limited, and you pay per image to scan and per retrieval to access — fees that compound every year.

Feature comparison

Fileport vs Iron Mountain / Access, side by side

CapabilityFileportIron Mountain / Access
AI-native search & grounded answers
Cross-system, vendor-neutralpartial
Unlimited search & retrieval (no per-touch fees)
Permission-aware, fail-closed retrieval
Retention, legal hold & eDiscoverypartial
Tamper-evident audit ledgerpartial
Agent / MCP-ready

Comparison reflects Fileport's view of the market. Larger incumbents may lead on certifications, distribution, and scale.

Buyer use case

When teams switch to Fileport

Enterprises facing rising per-retrieval bills and a dark archive bring their records into Fileport, keep retention and chain-of-custody intact, and gain unlimited governed search across everything — often at ~85% lower five-year TCO in an illustrative model.
FAQ

Common questions

Will I lose chain of custody migrating off Iron Mountain?

No. Event-based retention, legal hold, and a tamper-evident ledger carry through the migration, so every action remains provable.

How much can we save?

Most savings come from eliminating per-retrieval fees. Use the interactive ROI calculator to model your own documents, retrievals, and growth — figures are illustrative and configurable.

Related reading

Keep exploring

See why teams pick Fileport over Iron Mountain / Access.

Stop renting access to your own records. See Fileport on your own environment, with your own data.

Book a demo