We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Application Server and JBoss 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 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."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is the best in terms of scalability and performance, as well as the support for managing distributed transactions."
"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."
"The scalability of the product is quite good."
"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."
"This solution is easy to use with a GUI that is intuitive and very helpful."
"What's most valuable in IBM WebSphere Application Server is its resilience. When you use the solution, you know that after the communication has been done, there will be no doubt that the data has reached its destination."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is one of the best servers due to its stability and paid license."
"JBoss's configuration is straightforward and easy."
"The product integrates well with Java applications."
"The support is fast and reliable."
"JBoss is a scalable tool."
"The most valuable thing about JBoss is how easy it is to install and manage it on-premise, making the process simple."
"It is a Java-based product, so it is pretty straightforward. It is pretty easy from a developer's perspective. It is also pretty reliable and scalable."
"The stability is great."
"The tool's most beneficial feature is its scalability. People with limited technical knowledge can quickly grasp its functions with a brief introduction. The tool's ease of use makes it a plug-and-play solution, reducing the effort required to train users on its usage."
"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."
"Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those."
"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."
"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)."
"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."
"It should be able to serve more concurrent requests like Oracle. Oracle has more powerful stability, availability, and real-time serving."
"In spite of the solution's robustness, it is expensive and a bit difficult to support."
"The installation has room for improvement."
"The login process could be improved."
"The solution's documentation could be better."
"The stability of the solution could improve with Microsoft Windows."
"JBoss is not as reliable and stable as WebLogic."
"The solution could improve by providing more integration."
"There is not much ability inside of the solution. The world is going beyond different micro and data-type things like Microsoft Office, so we are not seeing much ability within the solution."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"The documentation could be better. When we have questions, we need to check multiple websites. There isn't one place listing a set of common problems and how to fix them."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Server with 26 reviews while JBoss is ranked 3rd in Application Server with 23 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8, while JBoss 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 JBoss writes "A flexible and stable solution that is cost-efficient compared to other products". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server, IBM BPM and IBM DataPower Gateway, whereas JBoss is most compared with Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server, IIS, Oracle GlassFish and TmaxSoft JEUS. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. JBoss 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.
