We performed a comparison between JBoss and Magic xpa Application Platform 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 solution's support is very good for repairing components."
"We can deploy the applications on the JBoss server, so it is easy to manage. It's also easy to add new certificates to the config."
"JBoss is a scalable tool."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The greatest benefit of JBoss is that it was procured by IBM, thereby offering exceptional support for our banking operations."
"The product integrates well with Java applications."
"The most valuable thing about JBoss is how easy it is to install and manage it on-premise, making the process simple."
"The most valuable feature is the UI."
"xpa gives us a fast development speed."
"The Magic xpa Application Platform is very suitable for production since it is easy to update. The program is simple to upgrade and deploy. The solution is convenient in production. You need to adjust the data, then adjust the program which is not difficult."
"What I found most valuable in the Magic xpa Application Platform is that it has a client-server and web browser technology that's perfect for company users."
"Magic’s Database Gateway allows the logic of the program to be isolated from the underlying database. This provides the flexibility not only to move existing programs to different database environments without the need to change the logic in the program but also allows the programmer access to different databases without the need to know how to "talk" to them."
"The best feature of Magic is the development time. The time it takes to develop something is incredibly fast if you compare Magic with, for example, Java."
"Speed of development and database connectivity (MS SQL, Oracle, DB2, Btrieve/Pervasive PSQL, ODBC, MySql, and SQLite)."
"Magic is rapid, it's a tool which we use to develop, change and maintain our programs. xpa has a lot more features onboard and it gives us the opportunity to do such things so that we can easily adapt and maintain our programs. It gives certain benefits to stay with our customers and the market."
"Magic’s unique approach to development ensures that the programmer stays focused on the objective of the program (i.e. display all customers in California), instead of the repetitive tasks that surround it (i.e. connect to database, open customers table, create the query to retrieve records within the specified criteria, fetch the result of the query, connect it to a data grid, etc.)."
"The login process could be improved."
"The solution sometimes crashed and had some compatibility issues with the DevOps JAR file."
"The stability of the solution could improve with Microsoft Windows."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"The solution's documentation could be better."
"The solution could improve by providing more integration."
"Logging-related issues in JBoss require improvement."
"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."
"Throughout my career, I've encountered difficulties when integrating new technologies with Magic xpa Application Platform. In particular, when attempting to incorporate features from other development languages into earlier versions of the solution called uniPaaS. I struggled to integrate .NET components due to the limited options available. This made the process more challenging and complicated. I find it challenging to create a more user-friendly experience for users who may be comparing the system to other systems they have used outside or within the company on different platforms."
"They want to be one toolbox for everything, but primarily, we are using xpa to develop desktop applications, and in that area they're lacking functionalities, flexibility, and modern stuff."
"In the next version of the Magic xpa Application Platform, I want tables or small programs where I can directly add expressions. I can do it on SQL, but it would make life much easier if that specification were added to the platform."
"When you have several tasks, you open a screen in a task in developing mode, and you don't see the parent screens. Debugging lacks the effects to solve problems. You have to do it first in a kind of studio. Then you have to be sure that you can do it in Magic because there is almost nothing to debug it. It's practically impossible to debug. You have to be sure before you put your snippets."
"There is room for improvement in Magic's marketing and licensing. I would like to see more integration of web functionality."
"The ability to display page up, page down, top and bottom buttons along the scroll bar would make my mouse-reliant customers happy."
"The user interface could be improved to be more friendly for developers."
"Support is very bad."
More Magic xpa Application Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
JBoss is ranked 3rd in Application Server with 21 reviews while Magic xpa Application Platform is ranked 7th in Application Server with 10 reviews. JBoss is rated 8.4, while Magic xpa Application Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of JBoss writes "A flexible and stable solution that is cost-efficient compared to other products". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Magic xpa Application Platform writes "Fast development and user-oriented functionalities, but it needs better .NET integration and a completely different pricing structure". JBoss is most compared with Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server, IBM WebSphere Application Server, IIS and Oracle GlassFish, whereas Magic xpa Application Platform is most compared with Microsoft .NET Framework, Mendix, OutSystems and GeneXus. See our JBoss vs. Magic xpa Application Platform 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.