We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Application Server and Microsoft System Center 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."WebSphere Application Server's best features include the data subscription and connection viewer."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is the best in terms of scalability and performance, as well as the support for managing distributed transactions."
"The solution is robust. The connection management and the scalability, which IBM provides to the Stack, are also valuable."
"Network Deployment is the most useful feature for scalability. It has many features within the standard WebSphere Application Server edition."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Portal Virtualization."
"Security: It is compatible with the latest Java 8 security features, supports FIPS 140-2 and NIST SP 800-53 with strong ciphers and cryptography keys, and supports TLS 1.2 completely. Also, configuring client and server certificates is relatively easy."
"One of the most valuable features might be the stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is one of the best servers due to its stability and paid license."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The availability performance matrix and the reporting capabilities are the solution's most valuable features."
"Step-by-step documentation that clarifies the implementation procedure."
"I like the automated features of it that let you schedule those updates and the ability of the product to focus on the specific updates, specific platforms, and products that we're interested in keeping up to date."
"Many processes could be implemented out-of-the-box, and this helped to adopt processes in areas which we lacked."
"Managment Packs for Microsoft-specific products, help us implement the best practices for each product."
"System Center helps to create the basis for ITIL alignment."
"The installation process is easy."
"Sometimes, I feel WebSphere runs a bit slow. It might be loading unnecessary libraries, impacting its performance compared to other application servers."
"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 current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application."
"In spite of the solution's robustness, it is expensive and a bit difficult to support."
"It should be able to serve more concurrent requests like Oracle. Oracle has more powerful stability, availability, and real-time serving."
"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 main issue we faced was its limited compatibility with non-Java technologies, which can result in difficulty detecting potential bugs and requiring additional integration efforts."
"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 platform's performance could be improved. Additionally, its UI needs to be well-upgraded and work faster."
"Less server consumption would help, as would better, more flexible reports."
"System Center hasn't updated to keep up with the industry. It needs improvements in the user interface, ease of use, and overall product functionality, particularly the cloud-monitoring features. It needs more capabilities to monitor AWS and Azure infrastructure."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"Could be more user friendly."
"Most of the documentation is online, however, there are some gaps there. The product documentation still refers back to the 2012 Server. We're pretty much in 2022. There's a ten-year gap there."
"They should have some customized solutions or internal development, then maybe it could be easier to use different solutions or some self-developed solution."
"The multi-tenancy support needs to be improved. We need to have the ability to manage several different environments from one central point of administration."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Infrastructure with 26 reviews while Microsoft System Center is ranked 15th in Application Infrastructure with 17 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8, while Microsoft System Center is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Compatible, stable, and scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft System Center writes "Good review of configurations, effective antivirus administration, and has weekly reports". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and IBM BPM, whereas Microsoft System Center is most compared with Oracle SOA Suite. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. Microsoft System Center 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.