IBM WebSphere Application Server Reviews

We use on-premise model, primarily for hosting a case management system.

We have about 3,000 users concurrently using this application. This application has achieved more than 99.9% up time which has resulted in increased productivity and efficiency.

Stability, high availability, alert management, and deployments are the most valuable features for us.

The computing resources required to run WAS could be reduced so that we can use a smaller virtual machine to run the application.

I would like WAS administration tasks to be completed via scripts, rather than GUI.

The solution is very highly available and very stable. We don't have any issues. We only need to restart VMs when we upgrade OS, apply WAS patches or deploy newer versions of our applications.

The solution is scalable to more number of concurrent users. Its ND version allows us to add more VMs. We have 3,000 users and we only need two WAS administrators. We don't have any plans to increase usage, but it's been very stable for long time.

Good.

The initial setup was complex. We needed an expert WAS administrator. We took iterative steps to achieve higher efficiencies.

In-house with experts from IBM.

Can't comment on the ROI, it has been very stable and provides very high availability. I guess ROI would be very high.

I don't remember the price, but there were no additional costs.

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.

We primarily use a generic WAS. 

We have WAS, which we basically use for JVM containers for services and REST APIs. We have some portal servers, and it is also used to host Pega. So it serves three primary functions.

It's an application server in general.

The thing about WebSphere, as opposed to other ones that I am aware of such as JBoss and Liberty, is that WebSphere has the most comprehensive scaffolding available to it.

A lot of JVM container products provide you with a raw JVM container and don't offer much else. However, WebSphere has the PRPC, which has extensive console capabilities, including the ability to control multiple JVM containers and the deployment. It's an enterprise-level product.

WAS is not what I would want if I were a small shop with two or three WAS servers or app servers. However, if I had 4,000 servers and wanted to install JVMs on them, WAS is a viable option. In my opinion, its strength is its enterprise capability.

One of the things that we have struggled with is understanding what's happening inside the covers when we're running a JVM. 

When we run into memory or locking issues, we resort to using third-party tools. However, it would be preferable to have native tools for debugging this type of problem.

It's not bad lately in terms of performance. WebSphere has always had some performance issues, at least until about three or four years ago. But it's getting better. I guess, aside from the product's complexity, I think it's pretty good for what it's billed as an enterprise application server.

I've spent the majority of my career working with IBM. Back in the late 1990s, I was working on WebSphere 3.0. So, for the last 25 years, I've been working on WebSphere on and off, or at the very least, the application service.

It costs more than some of the others, but, you get what you pay for. 

Much like TWS, IBM, the way they price their products is known as sub-cap pricing. It can be very complicated and intimidating for people who don't understand the concepts. 

I would like to see IBM simplify its licensing models.

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.

We sell IBM WebSphere licenses and provide core installation of WebSphere for our customers.

One of the most valuable features might be the stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server.

Most of my clients are quite happy with the WebSphere application, but I know that some are changing direction and the current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application. Since most of the application vendors our customers use also offer the application on Liberty, I think they're probably going to stop enhancing the WebSphere Application Server and instead concentrate on Liberty.

I have been working with this solution for the past ten to fifteen years. My company has been an IBM business partner since 1986.

IBM WebSphere is a stable solution.

I believe if customers want scalability, they can upgrade their WAS standard edition to the next deployment level, so it is scalable.

I would rate the technical support as a eight out of ten because the support could be a bit more responsive. 

Positive

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

I am always working. I am working with WebLogic and WebSphere. Some things are running on WebLogic and others on WebSphere. I use both.

It is deployed on-premise, and I am able to do everything they are doing on the cloud.

I would not compare WebSphere and WebLogic because both servers are really good.

However, once you have set up both of them, they work perfectly.

There are always bugs, such as the recent bug with log4j, but they're both good web servers. I can make use of either one, it makes no difference. It's just a different setting, but I'd say the quality is the same.

I am satisfied with this solution, as well as WebLogic. Both are good.

The performance is good.

I don't think about what needs improvement, I work with what I have.

There is always room for improvement. But it's getting better every time, with every new release, and every new patch, it's getting better. They are continuously improving.

When compared with WebLogic, Weblogic is lighter and consumes less memory.

IBM WebSphere Application Server is a stable solution.

I usually solve my problems on my own. I Google it. I do the research, find out what other people are having problems with, otherwise look to Oracle for solutions to some of them. I was always able to Google it and find the solution.

I have never had to contact Oracle or IBM for support.

I have worked with WebLogic, Apache Server, and SAP NetWeaver in the past. I've had a lot of experience.

I set up everything. you just need the hardware, and I do everything else. 

When you purchase Maximo, you get WebSphere for free. Why would you pay more for WebLogic?

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.

We use it for a web application related to insurance.

The VPN service is quite useful. Our main application runs on a close integration with Jira platforms. To access it remotely, we need WebSphere and a VPN server.  

Sometimes, I feel WebSphere runs a bit slow. It might be loading unnecessary libraries, impacting its performance compared to other application servers.

So, better performance is my main request.

My company has been using this solution for five to six years.

Once it's up and running, it's quite stable.

It is a scalable product. However, the IT team responsible for installation should have some knowledge of Unix operating systems since the platform runs on a Unix and Linux system.

The initial setup is relatively easy. The complete deployment time depends on the application. Some might take as little as eight hours, while others require more time.

We usually have a team of two or three people handling it. 

The pricing is a little expensive. I would rate the pricing a four out of ten. 

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

The solution's data consistency is great. It's very reliable. This is important for a transitional scenario. It is critical for us, so data consistency is the most important feature that we count on.

The user interface is reliable.

The scalability of the product is quite good.

The availability of the solution needs improvement.

The product should be more enhanced and responsive. We need to have the capabilities to customize it a bit more.

Their pricing is always too high.

The user interface isn't too impressive.

The stability of the solution could be much better.

The solution's technical support could be improved. They can be too technical and too detailed.

We've been using the solution for ten years.

The stability of the solution is okay. I'd rate it overall seven out of ten. It's mostly reliable, however, I believe it could use some major improvements.

The scalability of the solution is pretty good. I'd rate it seven out of ten. It's possible to scale a bit if you need to.

I've dealt with technical support in the past. It's not the best. It could be improved.

The initials setup is not straightforward. It's quite complicated. An organization needs some pretty good experience. They need a high skill level.

For us, deployment took half a year.

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.

We have used it for the implementation of a web interface on very old mainframe system.

We've avoided the remake of mainframe application logics.

WebSphere connects with old legacy systems, like CICS and TX Series that typically run on the mainframe environment and that must be integrated with open systems.

Cloud service offering should be improved because the future is in the utilization of the PaaS provided by principal cloud providers; I mean that it would be very useful to have the possibility to use WebSphere as a service like many other tools has already done.

I have been working with this system for ten years. 

I think the stability of the product is very good. 

The main problem is the licensing cost of the product. The product can scale but the budget cannot. We pay for core utilization and so we have to consider and manage peaks in resources utilization. 

IBM is our mail provider for DC facilities, system integration and AMS.

No

The initial setup was very complex due to the complexity of the already existing business logics.

We implemented the solution with IBM services.

The system is very old so it is not so easy to calculate. 

The product is very expensive because PVU has to be calculated on maximun virtual cores and there is no difference between production and non-production environments.

No

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. 

This solution is normally used on the front-end of applications that we have in DB2 for IBM i. Our customers are in a variety of industries including insurance, financial, and retail. They use the WebSphere Application Server as part of their portal that talks with the database.

We have installed this application under several different operating systems including Red Hat Linux, IBM i  and IBM AIX.

This solution is easy to use with a GUI that is intuitive and very helpful.

You have the ability to do a lot of things with the commands.

Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those.

The main complaint that my customers have about this product is the price.

I have been working with WebSphere Application Server for between five and ten years.

My customers have told me that this solution is very stable and it is working well.

I have dealt with IBM's technical support on a variety of issues and normally it is pretty good. The response time is good and depending on the area, some support is more diligent and more effective than others. In general, I would say that they are above average, but the support could be improved in certain areas.

The initial setup is quite easy. You don't necessarily need to be a technical person. The configuration can be a little more demanding, but the initial installation is not difficult.

The price of this product is higher than that of competitors.

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.