Gurvijay BhattiSenior Solutions Architect at Department of Justice
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"High availability, alert management, and deployments are the most valuable features for us. We have the ND version so we can do deployments."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Portal Virtualization."
"The solution is robust. The connection management and the scalability, which IBM provides to the Stack, are also valuable."
"It has good stability of the application server in the long term compared to other solutions."
"We needed this type of integration and WebShepere is the best tool for it."
"The scalability of the product is quite good."
"This solution is easy to use with a GUI that is intuitive and very helpful."
"It does integrate well with the Tivoli Federated Identity Management system."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"The solution has good integration."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"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."
"In the next release of this solution, I would like to see support for the Arabic language."
"They should make the solution more lightweight and not bundle everything into a single product."
"It should be able to serve more concurrent requests like Oracle. Oracle has more powerful stability, availability, and real-time serving."
"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 availability of the solution needs improvement."
"Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those."
"Based on the field and based on the build that was provided, we've noticed a lot of constraints in terms of the performance now."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"I don't remember the price, but there are no additional costs."
"We pay around $200,000 annually."
"The price of this product is higher than that of competitors."
"We used to pay about $100,000-$120,000 US or somewhere around there. That was a bit cost-prohibitive for us to continue."
"It is very expensive."
"IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost."
"The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives."
"This product is more expensive than competing products."
"I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 6th in Application Infrastructure with 9 reviews while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 7th in Application Infrastructure with 5 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.2, while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Bad documentation, does not scale well, and has a lot of complexities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "Easy to setup and deploy, with easy mapping, and it integrates well with MQ". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss, Tomcat, IBM BPM, Oracle WebLogic Server and Apache Web Server, whereas IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM BPM and Red Hat Fuse. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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.