I give the solution an eight out of ten. The compatibility and stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server make it capable of supporting all applications. Additionally, the solution's features, applications, user interface, and support are all beneficial. When vulnerabilities arise, IBM provides quick fixes and support.

I work for a consulting company that has multiple clients. Most of our enterprise users prefer to use the WebSphere Application Server due to its stability, support, enhancements, and prompt support. This is why people tend to like IBM products.

We are also customers of the product. 

In our organization we use the WebSphere Network Deployment edition.

We use this product in our core, internet and mobile banking, which means it is used by 20 bank tellers and eight million customers. 

I rate IBM WebSphere Application Server as an eight out of ten. 

I would recommend it because of its stable performance, scalability, and strong security features.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, with one being the worst and ten being the best, I would rate this solution an eight.

I think IBM WebSphere Application Server is a dead solution and will probably fade out. So, I would not recommend it to anyone.

On a scale from one to ten with one being the worst and ten being the best, I'd rate this solution at one.

My company is an IBM business partner. It provides IBM WebSphere Application Server to customers.

I'm working on the latest version of the solution, which is version 9.3.

My team is responsible for educating customers about IBM WebSphere Application Server and for the documentation, but maintaining the solution is the responsibility of the customers.

I'd rate IBM WebSphere Application Server nine out of ten because it's a great product.

My advice to people looking into IBM WebSphere Application Server is to go for it. If you want a product you can have confidence in, and a product with good availability, then IBM WebSphere Application Server is for you. It's deserving of its price because it's a good product, so even if IBM WebSphere Application Server is expensive, use it.

I would advise others to have a very strong partner who understands IBM WebSphere very well. They should be mindful of the architecture that they're going to put in place for the IBM solution. You should ensure that load balancing and the architecture of the implementation are right. Otherwise, there could be issues. Having a stronger partner for handling implementation makes life a lot easier and more meaningful.

I would rate IBM WebSphere Application Server an eight out of 10.

I rate IBM WebSphere Application Server an eight out of ten. 

We are pleased with the effectiveness of the solution. I would rate it eight out of ten. 

Use an expert WAS Admin to set up the deployment scripts and automating as much as possible. Implement DevOps concepts by working in conjunction with administrators and developers

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

Its best platform, in my opinion, is AIX on Power. Unfortunately, AIX on Power is being phased out. However, if you have a Power VM/AIX shop and are committed to Power and AIX, WAS is the app server of choice.

If you're considering ESXi or a hyper-converged solution, WAS works just as well on those platforms, the more cloud platforms.

For the space that it plays best in, I would rate IBM WebSphere Application Server a nine out of ten.

I would definitely recommend this solution to users, but there is always room for improvement. 

I would recommend using whichever is cheaper. Both are interchangeable, and I don't see a difference in their performance.

I would rate IBM WebSphere Application Server a nine out of ten.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We're just users. We don't have a business relationship with IBM.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher if they offered more customization capabilities and was more responsive.

If you need a small system that needs to be exposed on the web for simple transations, or if you are considering a cloud environment you should consider a different solution. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten because for complex system development, it is the best solution at this moment. 

IBM WebSphere Application Server works well and fulfills all of the requirements that are demanded of it, so it is a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It's an awesome solution. Compared to everything else that's out there in the market right now, IBM MQ is hands down the best solution available and that's based on 40 years of IT experience.

Invest in training. It's a complex product, but once you learn how it works, it's fantastic.

Reliability and the use of cutting-edge technology are important factors while selecting a vendor. Everything that's already in IBM MQ is state-of-the-art technology.

The solution that we have now, one of the challenges we have is with the WebSphere portal. The WebSphere application and WebSphere content management software are no longer IBM products. IBM would have sold it off to ETL back in 2018 or 2019. Maintaining that as a full end to end IBM solution has become very difficult. They basically have a hands-off approach now. Anybody who's using this needs to be aware of what is available to them by way of manufacturer support and then other support. The licensing entitlements for the product need to be very carefully understood. There are limitations to the hardware configuration that goes together with the implementation.

The other thing is that we've recognized that there are few resources that have the experience and capability of monitoring this system. If you are going to deploy it, you should ensure that you either have strong and continued backline support with your vendors or third party managers or that your in-house team is well skilled in order to monitor and maintain everything and administer the system. If you can get to a point where the build, implementation, and commissioning could be done in house, that will give you a lot more visibility to all the different elements of the solution and how they integrate and interoperate so that it makes the management on troubleshooting a lot easier. 

I'm biased due to my previous experiences. My experiences are really more influenced by the build and not necessarily the product as a standalone product. 

I would rate the solution at a three out of ten.

The solution is deployed in the UX operating system.

Although the solution is good, open-source options keep getting better and better, so I'd recommend others to look into that. This solution is expensive. So is Oracle. I find open-source more innovative and they often have a good community around them that offers helpful support.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher, but there are basic features that have minimum capabilities that can be very dissatisfying. Apart from that, they provide good support, offer a good clustering model that's reliable, and it's properly tested with certified code.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate BM WebSphere Application Server an eight out of ten.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

It has a sensitive implementation. If you do a wrong step, it will destroy the whole thing and you will need to start from scratch. 

I would give WebSphere Application Server a rating of nine out of ten.

IBM products, in general, need a lot of experience. They are very similar, have much in common, but to avoid getting into trouble and strange issues, it's important to read within the IBM Knowledge Center before starting. Also, do not skip any step in the installation/migration/configuration section, as it may stop you later, even without your knowing it.

Get a good feeling for how many users your system has and work out a system architecture before starting to implement IBM WAS. It is a product that can be implemented in many ways. Making a wrong choice in implementation can cause a lot of headaches later on.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.