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."Security: It is compatible with the latest Java 8 security features, supports FIPS 140-2 and NIST SP 800-53 with strong ciphers and cryptography keys, and supports TLS 1.2 completely. Also, configuring client and server certificates is relatively easy."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is the best in terms of scalability and performance, as well as the support for managing distributed transactions."
"High availability, alert management, and deployments are the most valuable features for us. We have the ND version so we can do deployments."
"The solution is robust. The connection management and the scalability, which IBM provides to the Stack, are also valuable."
"The solution is very stable and robust."
"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 WebSphere Application Server is one of the best servers due to its stability and paid license."
"WebSphere Application Server's best features include the data subscription and connection viewer."
"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."
"It is really good in terms of features, and it is stable."
"The scalability is good."
"The most valuable features are Oracle Unified Directory and unified identity access management."
"The solution is quite good for applying patches or performing upgrades."
"Oracle Service Bus is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"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."
"Oracle Fusion is stable."
"It should be able to serve more concurrent requests like Oracle. Oracle has more powerful stability, availability, and real-time serving."
"The current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application."
"WebSphere Application Server doesn't have an automated deployment option, forcing us to use third-party tools like Jenkins UCD and Palo Automated Deployment."
"Sometimes, I feel WebSphere runs a bit slow. It might be loading unnecessary libraries, impacting its performance compared to other application servers."
"The installation has room for improvement."
"IBM needs to pay attention to market changes more quickly. We now have Java 9 and very soon Java EE8. We do not want to wait for two or three years after their release until they are supported by the new version."
"While WebSphere mostly supports IBM HTTP Server (IHS) as the web server plugin, I think it would be beneficial if it also supported Apache and NGINX web servers. That would give customers more flexibility in their choices."
"When we run into memory or locking issues, we resort to using third-party tools. However, it would be preferable to have native tools for debugging this type of problem."
"Technical support should resolve issues more quickly."
"Its price can be improved. We are currently looking for more cost-efficiency. It should also have a little bit more flexibility for customizations. The customizations should be quicker."
"The product should improve BPEL features."
"The price could always be better."
"I would rate the stability a nine out of ten because we did have multiple breakdowns and crashes."
"One thing that I would like to see is if this product can be containerized. We are moving away from virtual servers and moving more towards containerization to be able to quickly set up environments or have the flexibility of scaling them. It would be good if it can be containerized, and it works well in containerized platforms."
"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."
"Oracle Fusion Middleware could improve by offering enhanced and customizable business-related features, particularly in supporting individual businesses or custom applications."
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 Microsoft .NET Framework, 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.