We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Application Server and Microsoft .NET Framework 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."The most valuable feature of this solution is Portal Virtualization."
"The scalability of the product is quite good."
"Starting with version 8, WAS provides a special folder called monitor deployment. Once you put the .war or .ear file in there, it is deployed automatically without human intervention. This greatly helps us in our continuous integration server. Once the deployment binary is ready, we write a script to copy it to that folder and then, voila! The application is up and running and accessible from its context root."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is one of the best servers due to its stability and paid license."
"The solution is robust. The connection management and the scalability, which IBM provides to the Stack, are also valuable."
"IBM WAS is the backbone for our enterprise content management suite which delivers the primary processes for our customers. Without a good application server, it would be hard to provide a secure layer of midddleware upon which the other applications run. IBM WAS improves the stability of the entire solution and provides a high quality platform for running web-based solutions."
"Network Deployment is the most useful feature for scalability. It has many features within the standard WebSphere Application Server edition."
"The most valuable features are its user-friendliness and reliability in terms of application hosting."
"It's easy to create and integrate things."
"User-friendly and straightforward."
"The addition of generics to handle common functionality across types, and the more recent upgrade of the dataset to the Entity Framework, has cut development time drastically, while increasing quality and confidence between builds."
"The tool offers a lot of support, and there is a lot of knowledge material available, along with a lot of community groups."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft .NET Framework is debugging."
"In-built refactoring and .Net profilers are the most valuable features of the solution."
"Microsoft Platform is the only viable solution when I wish to do something that is not supposed to be cross-platform."
"Ease of use, the richness of the libraries and basically very good development tools."
"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."
"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."
"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)."
"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 licensing could be improved, and I would like it to give the longevity of the lifespan of the visions. In the next release, I would like to be able to download and extract the files so that I can just use my application server."
"The current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application."
"Sometimes, I feel WebSphere runs a bit slow. It might be loading unnecessary libraries, impacting its performance compared to other application servers."
"When compared with WebLogic, Weblogic is lighter and consumes less memory."
"The product is nearing its sunset, and we think that by 2028, we won't get support anymore"
"Difficult to scale this product for large organizations."
"They could enhance support for Python within Visual Studio, as integrating Microsoft products with other frameworks can present a steep learning curve."
"Better integration with other tools to make the operation faster would be an improvement."
"It would be nice if the framework were able to work with additional environments and systems like Linux."
"If AI could be incorporated in Microsoft .NET Framework it would be helpful."
"The product's price is an area of concern, making it an area where improvements are required."
"The cloud features must be improved."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Infrastructure with 26 reviews while Microsoft .NET Framework is ranked 4th in Application Infrastructure with 47 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8, while Microsoft .NET Framework is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Compatible, stable, and scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft .NET Framework writes "Intuitive, easier to develop, maintain, and migrate from the old framework to newer versions". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and Fujitsu Interstage Application Server, whereas Microsoft .NET Framework is most compared with IIS, Magic xpa Application Platform, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Apache Web Server and Oracle SOA Suite. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. Microsoft .NET Framework 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.