We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Application Server and Oracle Fusion Middleware based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Server solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Without the Admin Console it would be very hard to configure JVM settings, JDBC datasources, mail session settings, and security providers."
"As compared to other applications, it has tremendous support. We have built internal capability so that we use it extensively internally. It is also easier to use with the outside data. You can write in ESQL, Java, or any other technology that you want to use for development. So, it is a lot more flexible in the language that it supports."
"It has good stability of the application server in the long term compared to other solutions."
"One of the most valuable features might be the stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Portal Virtualization."
"The solution is robust. The connection management and the scalability, which IBM provides to the Stack, are also valuable."
"The performance is good."
"Ease of administration: It has an Integrated Solutions Console, what we call the administrative console, with very detailed configurations and Help pages for each configurable item."
"One good thing, which is a little bit common across all middleware products, is that you can build asynchronous as well as synchronous processes. The SOA part is where it can maintain your state for any state-full integrations. If you have failures, you can replay all that, which is a good part."
"The scalability is good."
"The most valuable features are Oracle Unified Directory and unified identity access management."
"The most valuable feature is the structure of the product. We use Oracle Fusion Middleware to manage the Oracle database. Registered users can go to each product if sign-on credentials match each user's identical framework."
"Data integrity."
"Oracle Fusion is stable."
"Fusion Middleware's main feature for me is that it is quite flexible, and, as middleware, it provides us with all sorts of technology and application adapters, which makes it very handy to use."
"The solution is quite good for applying patches or performing upgrades."
"In the next release of this solution, I would like to see support for the Arabic language."
"When compared with WebLogic, Weblogic is lighter and consumes less memory."
"Initial setup is very simple. Just use the IBM Installation Manager and add the packages. The install wizard takes care of the rest. The only thing that can be difficult is to find the right packages on the IBM website, because of all the changes that IBM does on its website(s)."
"Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those."
"I think that this is a good product but I think that the cloud environment could be improved. I think that the future is in the utilization of the product in a product as a service way which is something that is lacking at this moment."
"Based on the field and based on the build that was provided, we've noticed a lot of constraints in terms of the performance now."
"The current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application."
"The installation has room for improvement."
"The main improvement must be made on the user interface. You need to use another Oracle cross in this product. It must be improved and some features of the connectors must be changed."
"An improvement for Oracle's Fusion Middleware could definitely be found in the SOA component. It's a heavyweight container and, if you ask me, if a product is available as a docker image where we can easily port it in to another Kubernetes platform, that would be perfect. But as for the current situation in the market, nobody is really willing to deploy this on premises."
"Technical support should resolve issues more quickly."
"I would rate the stability a nine out of ten because we did have multiple breakdowns and crashes."
"Oracle Fusion Middleware could improve by offering enhanced and customizable business-related features, particularly in supporting individual businesses or custom applications."
"Oracle Fusion Middleware is based on the regulations in Saudi Arabia and the legislation changes. There is a need to be improvements all the time. It needs to adapt quickly in this market. Additionally, there could be some improvements in the construction sector."
"The documentation might not be good enough for new users."
"All areas of HCM modules could use some improvement."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Server with 26 reviews while Oracle Fusion Middleware is ranked 6th in Application Server with 12 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8, while Oracle Fusion Middleware is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Compatible, stable, and scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Fusion Middleware writes "Maintains top database performance and includes a very good ATB feature". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and Oracle GlassFish, whereas Oracle Fusion Middleware is most compared with Oracle WebLogic Server, Tomcat, IIS, JBoss and TIBCO ActiveMatrix. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. Oracle Fusion Middleware report.
See our list of best Application Server vendors.
We monitor all Application Server reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.