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."
"There's good documentation and a pretty good community surrounding the product."
"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 most valuable feature is the UI."
"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."
"In general, the support of the ERPC would be really good due to the fact that, so far, I have not seen it."
"It can have automation features. Everybody is focused right now on automation. In terms of saving cost, automation is always the first thing that comes to light."
"Having the support combined with Red Hat support would be an improvement."
"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."
"We pay for a maintenance license, but it is not expensive."
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 2nd in Application Server with 9 reviews while JBoss is ranked 5th in Application Server with 3 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.2, while JBoss is rated 8.0. 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 JBoss writes "Good documentation, very stable, and scalable". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with Tomcat, IBM BPM, Oracle WebLogic Server, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform and IIS, whereas JBoss is most compared with Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server, Oracle GlassFish, IIS and Oracle Fusion Middleware. 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.