We performed a comparison between Apache Web Server and IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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."It's very stable, and it hosts one of the biggest of many biggest web applications in the world."
"It is scalable."
"Apache Web Server is free of cost."
"Its community is its most valuable feature. Solving problems is easier on Apache because so many people know this product."
"The solution offers good security."
"The best thing about Apache is that it is open-source, so implementing my platform on-premises is less expansive than other solutions."
"The product is very cheap and stable."
"The control panel is very easy to navigate. It's similar to most hosting platforms, so it's user-friendly. Once you get used to it, managing your hosting becomes easy, too."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"The solution has good integration."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The interface has room for improvement."
"Lacks integration with some cloud solutions."
"I want the user interface to be more user-friendly."
"In future releases, I would like to see better server optimization."
"The major issue occurs with ports. So, I would like to see easier port management."
"By optimizing the infrastructure to allow the webserver to directly handle queries from memory—particularly by prioritizing the storage of queries in memory and processing them through the web server interface—I could potentially cut down the required instances from five hundred to two hundred."
"It would be great if technical support for Apache were available in Iran. It is a very important need."
"So far, for us, everything is okay."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
Apache Web Server is ranked 3rd in Application Infrastructure with 21 reviews while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews. Apache Web Server is rated 8.6, while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Apache Web Server writes "Has good security, speed and traffic handling features ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". Apache Web Server is most compared with IIS, NGINX Plus, IBM WebSphere Application Server, Microsoft .NET Framework and Zend PHP Engine, whereas IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM. See our Apache Web Server vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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.