We performed a comparison between Apache Web Server and IBM WebSphere Application Server 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."Most of the features I liked were related to the performance during peak hours."
"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 solution's most valuable feature is reporting."
"The best thing about Apache is that it is open-source, so implementing my platform on-premises is less expansive than other solutions."
"Apache Web Server is free of cost."
"The solution offers good security."
"The product's initial setup phase is straightforward."
"It is scalable."
"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."
"It does integrate well with the Tivoli Federated Identity Management system."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is one of the best servers due to its stability and paid license."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Portal Virtualization."
"WebSphere Application Server's best features include the data subscription and connection viewer."
"As compared to other applications, it has tremendous support. We have built internal capability so that we use it extensively internally. It is also easier to use with the outside data. You can write in ESQL, Java, or any other technology that you want to use for development. So, it is a lot more flexible in the language that it supports."
"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 solution is very stable and robust."
"So far, for us, everything is okay."
"There is a security-related problem that depends on the web server's configuration."
"There isn't a dedicated customer support available"
"The major issue occurs with ports. So, I would like to see easier port management."
"It would be great if technical support for Apache were available in Iran. It is a very important need."
"A monitoring interface would be great for this product. The monitoring dashboards for Apache's models are not included in the basic installation. You can install the basic monitoring model, then connect this model to another monitoring system."
"The GUI for the less experienced users needs some improvement. For some companies, it is hard to configure it if they have not had any experience."
"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."
"Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those."
"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 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."
"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)."
"In spite of the solution's robustness, it is expensive and a bit difficult to support."
"The footprint could be reduced so that we can use a smaller virtual machine to run the application. We could also use more scripts. I would like this solution to be more script oriented, rather than GUI oriented."
"Installing or configuring a WAS server instance as a Windows Service causes a lot of problems, especially when the server needs credentials to stop."
"They should make the solution more lightweight and not bundle everything into a single product."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache Web Server is ranked 3rd in Application Infrastructure with 22 reviews while IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Infrastructure with 26 reviews. Apache Web Server is rated 8.6, while IBM WebSphere Application Server 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 Application Server writes "Compatible, stable, and scalable". Apache Web Server is most compared with IIS, NGINX Plus, Microsoft .NET Framework, Zend PHP Engine and JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, whereas IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and IIS. See our Apache Web Server vs. IBM WebSphere Application Server 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.