We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Application Server and Microsoft .NET Framework based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."IBM WebSphere Application Server is the best in terms of scalability and performance, as well as the support for managing distributed transactions."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is easy to use."
"It does integrate well with the Tivoli Federated Identity Management system."
"One of the most valuable features might be the stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server."
"The most valuable features are its user-friendliness and reliability in terms of application hosting."
"The thing about WebSphere, as opposed to other ones that I am aware of such as JBoss and Liberty, is that WebSphere has the most comprehensive scaffolding available to it."
"IBM WAS is extremely scalable. It is easy to add additional servers and to divide the load over servers in all kinds of ways."
"The only reason why we're currently using WebSphere is that the integration of the authentication with Azure is very quick. WebSphere has something that can immediately connect with Azure Active Directory."
"A great solution for creating program solutions in a framework for Microsoft Windows quickly and easily."
"I like that ASP.NET is used for the framework and the core web services."
"If we take low code, no code platform such as RPA platforms, you might end up writing 100 lines of code and you might do it in a single line of code using. NET."
"As we are a software company, we find that accessing resources using this technology is easier compared to the others."
"In-built refactoring and .Net profilers are the most valuable features of the solution."
"Ease of use, the richness of the libraries and basically very good development tools."
"Initial setup is straightforward. All the components are readily available."
"The most valuable feature is customization."
"The solution could improve the integration."
"The availability of the solution needs improvement."
"In spite of the solution's robustness, it is expensive and a bit difficult to support."
"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)."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server hasn't changed much. It's still a heavyweight for any company compared to what you get. Unless your code base is deeply linked with it, I don't think it's a great idea to go with this solution. The current trend is toward modularity and containerization, and given the product's requirements, containerization will be difficult. There is a memory requirement as well."
"The solution consumes hardware."
"What could be improved in IBM WebSphere Application Server is its interconnection with other products, for example, Kafka. What I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is a better graphical user interface."
"The main issue we faced was its limited compatibility with non-Java technologies, which can result in difficulty detecting potential bugs and requiring additional integration efforts."
"In my opinion, this solution can be improved by providing out-of-the-box support for different types of libraries."
"Microsoft could improve .NET Framework by providing more resources to help users understand the solution."
"I would like more web integration."
"In the next release, I am looking for more advanced technologies such as socket communication and enhanced features like realtime chat with the clients."
"It would be nice if the framework were able to work with additional environments and systems like Linux."
"I would like to see a better response time from the technical support."
"The integration capability of the product with AI is an area with certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"The product's price is an area of concern, making it an area where improvements are required."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Infrastructure with 26 reviews while Microsoft .NET Framework is ranked 4th in Application Infrastructure with 47 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8, while Microsoft .NET Framework is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Compatible, stable, and scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft .NET Framework writes "Intuitive, easier to develop, maintain, and migrate from the old framework to newer versions". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and Fujitsu Interstage Application Server, whereas Microsoft .NET Framework is most compared with IIS, Magic xpa Application Platform, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Apache Web Server and Oracle SOA Suite. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. Microsoft .NET Framework report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure 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.