We performed a comparison between Apache Web Server and IBM WebSphere Application Server 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."The open-source nature is one of its most significant advantages."
"Most of the features I liked were related to the performance during peak hours."
"It is scalable."
"It's very stable, and it hosts one of the biggest of many biggest web applications in the world."
"Apache Web Server is free of cost."
"The most significant advantage is the ability to swiftly enable HTTPS services when my DNS is configured correctly."
"The control panel is very easy to navigate. It's similar to most hosting platforms, so it's user-friendly. Once you get used to it, managing your hosting becomes easy, too."
"The product is very cheap and stable."
"As compared to other applications, it has tremendous support. We have built internal capability so that we use it extensively internally. It is also easier to use with the outside data. You can write in ESQL, Java, or any other technology that you want to use for development. So, it is a lot more flexible in the language that it supports."
"The only reason why we're currently using WebSphere is that the integration of the authentication with Azure is very quick. WebSphere has something that can immediately connect with Azure Active Directory."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Portal Virtualization."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is one of the best servers due to its stability and paid license."
"IBM WAS is extremely scalable. It is easy to add additional servers and to divide the load over servers in all kinds of ways."
"WebSphere Application Server's best features include the data subscription and connection viewer."
"High availability, alert management, and deployments are the most valuable features for us. We have the ND version so we can do deployments."
"IBM WAS is the backbone for our enterprise content management suite which delivers the primary processes for our customers. Without a good application server, it would be hard to provide a secure layer of midddleware upon which the other applications run. IBM WAS improves the stability of the entire solution and provides a high quality platform for running web-based solutions."
"By optimizing the infrastructure to allow the webserver to directly handle queries from memory—particularly by prioritizing the storage of queries in memory and processing them through the web server interface—I could potentially cut down the required instances from five hundred to two hundred."
"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."
"The product's initial setup process could be easier for users."
"The GUI for the less experienced users needs some improvement. For some companies, it is hard to configure it if they have not had any experience."
"Lacks integration with some cloud solutions."
"There is a security-related problem that depends on the web server's configuration."
"In future releases, I would like to see better server optimization."
"The major issue occurs with ports. So, I would like to see easier port management."
"They should make the solution more lightweight and not bundle everything into a single product."
"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."
"Initial setup is very simple. Just use the IBM Installation Manager and add the packages. The install wizard takes care of the rest. The only thing that can be difficult is to find the right packages on the IBM website, because of all the changes that IBM does on its website(s)."
"The solution consumes hardware."
"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 footprint could be reduced so that we can use a smaller virtual machine to run the application. We could also use more scripts. I would like this solution to be more script oriented, rather than GUI oriented."
"The installation has room for improvement."
"When compared with WebLogic, Weblogic is lighter and consumes less memory."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache Web Server is ranked 3rd in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Infrastructure with 8 reviews. Apache Web Server is rated 8.6, while IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Apache Web Server writes "Useful in deploying servers to host websites with good modularity". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Stable, resilient, has good availability, and offers excellent technical support". Apache Web Server is most compared with IIS, NGINX Plus, Microsoft .NET Framework, Zend PHP Engine and IBM DataPower Gateway, whereas IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and HCL Digital Experience. See our Apache Web Server vs. IBM WebSphere Application Server 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.