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."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."
"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."
"This solution is easy to use with a GUI that is intuitive and very helpful."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Portal Virtualization."
"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."
"The solution has good performance."
"Without the Admin Console it would be very hard to configure JVM settings, JDBC datasources, mail session settings, and security providers."
"Oracle Service Bus is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"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."
"The scalability is good."
"The initial setup is easy. There are many self-tutorial videos are on the Internet, and then the Oracle documents are self-explanatory."
"Oracle Fusion is stable."
"The solution is quite good for applying patches or performing upgrades."
"Data integrity."
"It is really good in terms of features, and it is stable."
"Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those."
"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."
"In spite of the solution's robustness, it is expensive and a bit difficult to support."
"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."
"In the next release of this solution, I would like to see support for the Arabic language."
"It should be able to serve more concurrent requests like Oracle. Oracle has more powerful stability, availability, and real-time serving."
"The solution could improve the integration."
"The business logic side of it is sort of missing in the sense that if I want to track and measure velocity, it is not really available. You have to buy another application and embark on a separate implementation. Instead of having different licensing, IBM DataPower should be integrated with WebSphere. It will allow us to build the business layer and rules a lot more efficiently, rather than developing rules within the application. It would be good if we can set up the business layer through parametrization rather than development. IBM DataPower has the business rule and the controls, and if it can be integrated, it would be fantastic. It will help the application in working better in terms of security features and business logic. If you're going to use it for open banking, you will be able to monitor velocity on the total pricing."
"The product should improve BPEL features."
"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."
"The documentation might not be good enough for new users."
"I would rate the stability a nine out of ten because we did have multiple breakdowns and crashes."
"All areas of HCM modules could use some improvement."
"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 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."
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.