We compared Spring Boot and Eclipse MicroProfile based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, Spring Boot is praised for its simplicity, flexibility, and efficiency in developing Java-based applications, with particular emphasis on customer service and cost-effectiveness. On the other hand, Eclipse MicroProfile is commended for its lightweight architecture, ease of integration, and strong support, with users highlighting its positive ROI and the need for improved documentation and compatibility.
Features: Spring Boot is lauded for its simplicity, ease of use, and rapid application development capabilities. Its streamlined configuration process and extensive integration options make it highly flexible. On the other hand, Eclipse MicroProfile is praised for its lightweight and flexible architecture, seamless integration with other frameworks and platforms, and extensive support and documentation.
Pricing and ROI: Spring Boot has been praised for its cost-effectiveness and reasonable pricing options, while Eclipse MicroProfile is acclaimed for its minimal setup cost and flexible licensing model. Customers appreciate the ease of implementation with Spring Boot, while users of Eclipse MicroProfile find it suitable for various usage scenarios., Spring Boot product has been praised for increased efficiency, reduced development time, improved performance, and enhanced productivity. Users appreciate the ease of use, versatility, and availability of numerous libraries. On the other hand, Eclipse MicroProfile has shown positive ROI with improved efficiency, enhanced productivity, and cost savings.
Room for Improvement: Spring Boot could benefit from enhancements in performance, documentation, and ease of use. It also needs improvements in error handling, compatibility with frameworks, resource management, and integration with external components. On the other hand, Eclipse MicroProfile needs better documentation, clearer examples and tutorials, more frequent updates, addressing compatibility issues, improving performance, and better integration with existing tools.
Deployment and customer support: The user reviews for Spring Boot and Eclipse MicroProfile show that the duration required to establish a new tech solution can vary. While some users mentioned spending three months on deployment and an additional week on setup for both products, there are also users who completed deployment and setup within the same week., The customer service for Spring Boot is highly praised for its responsiveness and helpfulness. Users find the support team efficient, knowledgeable, and attentive to their needs. On the other hand, Eclipse MicroProfile's customer service is highly regarded for its prompt assistance, efficient problem-solving, and understanding of user needs. The support team's excellent response time indicates a strong commitment to customer satisfaction.
The summary above is based on 33 interviews we conducted recently with Spring Boot and Eclipse MicroProfile users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"We use the solution to create microservices."
"Provides a lightweight runtime."
"The solution is stable."
"I have found the starter solutions valuable, as well as integration with other products."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...The initial setup was not complex and was a simple process."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"The setup is straightforward."
"Spring Boot is much easier when it comes to the configuration, setup, installation, and deployment of your applications, compared to any kind of MVC framework. It has everything within a single framework."
"The community surrounding Spring Boot is really good. If you face any issue with Spring Boot, you will get the answer from the community."
"The configuration setup in Spring Boot is pretty simplified compared to Hibernate ORM."
"Spring Boot could improve its integration with the major cloud providers. Connectivity with cloud solutions isn't easy compared to other frameworks like Django and Python."
"The tool needs to improve its messaging."
"Its performance speed could be improved while working on the browser."
"Deployment of microservers in the Kubernetes environment is difficult."
"When we change versions, we run into issues."
"Spring Boot's cost could be cheaper."
"The database connectivity could be better in terms of dealing with multi-tenant systems."
"We'd like them to develop more supporting testing."
"It needs more applicable control for large-scale application development."
"When the dependencies within those starter packages clash, mismatch or have a hazard, it is hard to solve the issue."
"The services we develop are purely synchronous services, so there's a blocking and waiting state. This is a big problem in microservices."
"The current state of Spring Boot's cloud layer requires further development, especially for collecting Java functions for cloud platforms like GCP Cloudground. Having to write every single API request in a single class can be a cumbersome and time-consuming task that is not ideal for Java developers. Additionally, having all API calls in one class and making it the main class presents problems with package visibility. Therefore, there is much room for improvement in the Spring Cloud area."
Eclipse MicroProfile is ranked 6th in Java Frameworks with 3 reviews while Spring Boot is ranked 1st in Java Frameworks with 38 reviews. Eclipse MicroProfile is rated 8.4, while Spring Boot is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Eclipse MicroProfile writes "Scalable solution with an easy initial setup process". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Spring Boot writes "It's highly scalable, secure, and provides all the enhanced tools I need. ". Eclipse MicroProfile is most compared with Jakarta EE, Amazon Corretto, Vert.x and Open Liberty, whereas Spring Boot is most compared with Jakarta EE, Open Liberty, Apache Spark, Vert.x and Oracle Application Development Framework. See our Eclipse MicroProfile vs. Spring Boot report.
See our list of best Java Frameworks vendors.
We monitor all Java Frameworks 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.