I have used it for PHP web servers and also as a proxy for Java application servers. I have used the Apache model for the Java infrastructure.
Can be done in a cluster configuration and is very scalable
Pros and Cons
- "Its community is its most valuable feature. Solving problems is easier on Apache because so many people know this product."
- "A monitoring interface would be great for this product. The monitoring dashboards for Apache's models are not included in the basic installation. You can install the basic monitoring model, then connect this model to another monitoring system."
What is our primary use case?
What is most valuable?
Its community is its most valuable feature. Solving problems is easier on Apache because so many people know this product. It's the most iconic, used web server in the world that I know.
What needs improvement?
The improvement can be done in the versions. Even though there are newer, stabler versions available, if you are installing from a data center, you have to install the older version. Then, installing the newer version is uncomfortable as it has to be done manually.
A monitoring interface would be great for this product. The monitoring dashboards for Apache's models are not included in the basic installation. You can install the basic monitoring model, then connect this model to another monitoring system.
For how long have I used the solution?
Five years.
Buyer's Guide
Apache Web Server
June 2025
Learn what your peers think about Apache Web Server. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
It is stable.
With Apache, you can't update the system. There is a big gap between models. I don't like this.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
You can do it in a cluster configuration, and it is very scalable.
We have 5,000 users.
How are customer service and support?
I have not used the technical support.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I have used a number of servers. Previously, I used NGINX. I switched to Apache because it has model and is more flexible.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup is easy.
It took 15 minutes to deploy.
What about the implementation team?
I deployed the solution myself.
What other advice do I have?
I would recommend the solution to others.
I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10).
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Disclosure: My company does not have a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer.
Senior Supervisor of Virtualisation & DevOps at a tech consulting company with 201-500 employees
A stable solution that is cost-effective and straightforward to deploy
Pros and Cons
- "The best thing about Apache is that it is open-source, so implementing my platform on-premises is less expansive than other solutions."
- "It would be great if technical support for Apache were available in Iran. It is a very important need."
Buyer's Guide
Apache Web Server
June 2025
Learn what your peers think about Apache Web Server. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Senior IT Architect at a university with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Apr 10, 2016
Apache vs. Nginx
Originally posted https://zitseng.com/archives/10435
Apache or Nginx. This is a question that many website administrators have considered. It’s a question that I’ve also considered several times, and again just the past week. Apache is the most popular web server on the Internet. Nginx, on the other hand, is designed for crazy fast performance. Fast is always good to have.
I’ve been making some incremental changes to my website. It’s all under the hood. One thing that inevitably surfaces is about performance. I’ve been using Apache from the beginning. It’s completely functional, and does everything I need it to do. It might not be the fastest web server software, but it’s no slow coach either.
Nginx is the newer kid on the block. It was first released in 2004, so it’s not really all that new anymore. It does have a reputation for performance, both in terms of raw speed and ability to scale to significant load.
But is Nginx really faster? I know it’s popularly believed to be faster than Apache, but I’m the sort who must try, see, and believe. Well, at least if it’s something practical that I can do.
My test would be on my live WordPress blog website. It is a typical LAMP setup: Linux, Apache, MariaDB and PHP (via mod_php). On the exact same system, I installed and configured Nginx. Since there’s no equivalent of mod_php in Nginx, I took the opportunity to move from mod_php to php-fpm. So at this point, everything’s absolutely identical, and I can just switch between Apache and Nginx anytime with ease.
You know what? I found negligible difference between Apache and Nginx. My test was merely intended to replicated the realistic type of volume my website handles. It isn’t a lot. I was more concerned about the speed at which the web server could respond to requests. I had expected to see some clear wins with Nginx. But no.
Perhaps Apache has caught up with Nginx. I didn’t see much difference in memory utilisation either. Yes, that’s another surprise for me.
If you must know, Apache actually came out slightly better, but it’s only less than 3% faster than serving requests and just about 3% better at memory.
Just to shed a bit more information, my Apache is version 2.4.6, not the latest at all, but I do use their new mpm_event worker. This is the latest of Apache’s multiprocessing model.
I made up my own test suite, in case you were wondering. Many people like to use Apache’s ab, but ab cannot handle testing of mixed URLs, which would be more realistic since a website will contain a mixture of resource types. Nevertheless, I did run Apache ab as well to get a sense of its numbers. There are some numbers, hitting the WordPress main index page.
| Apache | Apache | Nginx | Nginx | |
| C=4 | C=8 | C=4 | C=8 | |
| Requests per sec | 2.56 | 2.64 | 2.61 | 2.63 |
| Mean time per request (ms) | 1564 | 3003 | 1530 | 3040 |
| Transfer rate (kB/s) | 105.3 | 108.6 | 107.46 | 108.19 |
| 50% of requests served in (ms) | 1504 | 3004 | 1504 | 3018 |
| 90% of requests served in (ms) | 1774 | 3174 | 1576 | 3187 |
| 100% of requests served in (ms) | 2068 | 3934 | 2139 | 3610 |
The test were done with concurrency of 4 and 8. I didn’t go for too many, because realistically my website wouldn’t get all that busy.
You see again from the above table that the difference between Apache and Nginx seems rather negligible.
The Nginx tested is version 1.9.12. It’s the latest. Both Apache and Nginx have Google’s Pagespeed module installed. I used the binary package provided for Apache. On Nginx, there’s no package available, so I built Nginx with Pagespeed myself, with this patch to fix some bug with multiple Vary headers being erroneously emitted.
I do find some benefits with Nginx. FIrst, it has HTTP2 support. Apache has it from 2.4.17, but it’s not in any CentOS package repo. HTTP2 has real benefits. I benchmarked on a real Chrome browser. Nginx with HTTP2 was sending pages faster to Chrome than Apache could. HTML page was fully received in 1.5 s on average with Nginx, versus 2 s with Apache. The webpage with all resources gets delivered in 2.6 s with Nginx, verus 3.2 with Apache. Good, Nginx is fast. However, on closer scrutiny, it turns out all the speed advantage basically comes from quicker connection setup. That’s basically a benefit of HTTP2, not of Nginx per se.
It seems to be that whether Apache or Nginx, the web servers themselves aren’t very different. The problem is in other features that I want.
I want Google Pagespeed. It’s really useful in improving content delivery performance, particularly when you’re working with other software and can’t control HTML output by hand.
HTTP2 seems to offer real benefits. Any modern website ought to adopt it now.
So now I’m in a sort of dilemma. I try as hard as possible not to compile stuffs by hand. I can do it if I need, but I prefer not to. It’s tiring to keep stuffs up-to-date. If I want Pagespeed, Apache offers me the advantage of not having to compile stuff by hand. But Apache won’t do HTTP2, not unless I get version 2.4.17 or later, which probably means I have to compile by myself anyway, and that’s precisely what I want to avoid.
There is a Nginx package repo available, up-to-date with version 1.9.12 at this time. HTTP2 is in there. The problem here is that Pagespeed for Nginx needs to be built from source.
CentOS is not going to move ahead with the Apache version. That’s how it is with enterprise Linux distros. I dislike Ubuntu, but I’m spying that their next 16.04 LTS release appears to include Apache 2.4.17. The current Ubuntu 15.10 does not. So I’ve got no solution with Ubuntu either. 16.04 won’t be that long a wait though.
Decisions, decisions.
At time of this writing, I have Nginx running. Built from source, so that I can get Pagespeed.
I think the surprising take-away for me is that Nginx is practically not faster than Apache, HTTP2 aside.
Disclosure: My company does not have a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer.
Network Engineer & Web Developer at OneTexh
Vendor
Jul 21, 2013
It is open source and OS independent so it is best to use apahe as web server.
Senior Manager of Engineering with 1,001-5,000 employees
A great web server to start hosting your web sites
Head of Data Center at a tech company with 51-200 employees
Clearly one of the best open-source products for running web servers. Our web server of choice for running web servers for more than 7 years and counting.
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Apache Web Server Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros
sharing their opinions.
Updated: June 2025
Product Categories
Application InfrastructurePopular Comparisons
IBM BPM
IBM DataPower Gateway
NGINX Plus
IBM WebSphere Application Server
Oracle SOA Suite
Microsoft .NET Framework
JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
Azul Zulu
WebLogic Suite
Zend PHP Engine
SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal
Zulu Embedded
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Apache Web Server Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros
sharing their opinions.
Quick Links
Learn More: Questions:
- Which front-end product for authorization and authentication into an Apache Web Server application, PIXIA, would you recommend?
- Do you think there is a minimum critical threshold that justifies the deployment of the System Center suite?
- When evaluating Application Infrastructure, what aspect do you think is the most important to look for?
- What application infrastructure solution do you recommend?
- What do you use application infrastructure solutions for in your organization?
- Why is Application Infrastructure important for companies?
Hi Imran,
Yes you can use php for IIS but I wouldn't advise it, I have had sites written in php running on IIS, however php parsing is a lot slower on IIS than apache.
Also I have to disagree about the point of security, there are a lot more vulnerabilities on Windows then on Linux. Any website can be fully secure if you always have an up to date system that is locked down.
Wissam