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."The performance is good."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is easy to use."
"It has good stability of the application server in the long term compared to other solutions."
"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 WAS is extremely scalable. It is easy to add additional servers and to divide the load over servers in all kinds of ways."
"The most valuable features are its user-friendliness and reliability in terms of application hosting."
"We needed this type of integration and WebShepere is the best tool for it."
"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 most valuable features are Oracle Unified Directory and unified identity access management."
"Oracle Service Bus is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"The scalability is good."
"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."
"Data integrity."
"The initial setup is easy. There are many self-tutorial videos are on the Internet, and then the Oracle documents are self-explanatory."
"The solution is quite good for applying patches or performing upgrades."
"Fusion Middleware's main feature for me is that it is quite flexible, and, as middleware, it provides us with all sorts of technology and application adapters, which makes it very handy to use."
"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."
"Installing or configuring a WAS server instance as a Windows Service causes a lot of problems, especially when the server needs credentials to stop."
"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."
"WebSphere Application Server doesn't have an automated deployment option, forcing us to use third-party tools like Jenkins UCD and Palo Automated Deployment."
"Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those."
"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."
"The solution could improve the integration."
"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."
"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."
"I would rate the stability a nine out of ten because we did have multiple breakdowns and crashes."
"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."
"Technical support should resolve issues more quickly."
"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.