Gurvijay BhattiSenior Solutions Architect at Department of Justice
Dan MarinBranch Technical Manager at a computer software company
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."
"The most valuable features of this solution are scalability and performance."
"The solution is much lighter as an application server than other solutions that we used before. We used IBM Workshare Application Server and Oracle WebLogic. They are heavy application servers. JBoss is lighter. It starts faster and iterates its application fast. It's much, much faster than the competition."
"Stable and easy to handle in terms of hosting applications."
"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."
"This solution needs better management UI."
"IBM offered JAVA profiling, which is something I used often and I wish that JBoss had something similar."
"Lacks some functional requirements."
"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 WebSphere Application Server is ranked 6th in Application Infrastructure with 9 reviews while JBoss Enterprise Application Platform is ranked 14th in Application Infrastructure with 3 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.2, while JBoss Enterprise Application Platform is rated 8.4. 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 Enterprise Application Platform writes "Light, with an easy initial setup and a good set of features". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss, Tomcat, IBM BPM, Oracle WebLogic Server and IIS, whereas JBoss Enterprise Application Platform is most compared with Microsoft .NET Framework, Apache Web Server, NGINX Plus, Oracle SOA Suite and Azul Zulu. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 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.