Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apache Web Server vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 5, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Apache Web Server
Ranking in Application Infrastructure
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM WebSphere Message Broker
Ranking in Application Infrastructure
16th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Application Infrastructure category, the mindshare of Apache Web Server is 11.3%, up from 9.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is 1.9%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Infrastructure
 

Featured Reviews

Sakthivel Veeramuthu - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to optimize for high performance and handle heavy traffic
Most of the features I liked were related to the performance during peak hours. Because I needed to optimize the Apache web server to run it as a high performer during my customers' usage, then I needed to reduce my Apache web server resource usage for that. So that part of the thing is what I was more interested in doing. So, I mainly liked the performance and security.
BrajendraKumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers large-sized business information processing with a time-saving setup and impressive stability
I primarily use two previews of the product for Dev and two for QA as part of the production process. Whatever tools our company is using, the cost of a license in IBM WebSphere Message Broker is about 80% of all these software or tools. The message routing capabilities satisfy workflow efficiency. The product supports message formats of XML, JSON, and SSID, which are around 24 KB to 50 KB in size. The solution supports communication protocols like STTP and TCP. Features like DataGraph need to be introduced in IBM WebSphere Message Broker. Some of the clients of our organization are using an outdated version of IBM WebSphere Message Broker for which the vendor doesn't provide direct support anymore. For the aforementioned version, our company professionals can solve the queries on their own without seeking support from IBM. During the installation of a prior version of IBM WebSphere Message Broker, sometimes I have to configure the failovers through the cluster, where issues arise, and I often seek help from the support team. The solution is being used by some medicine companies in our organization that receive sales orders from the EDR or JDE. I would not recommend the product to others as its becoming obsolete and they can rather choose a middleware solution from Amazon or Azure. But I would overall rate the product a nine out of ten.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution's most valuable feature is reporting."
"It is more secure to use Apache and you will have fewer problems than other web services."
"It is scalable."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"The solution has good integration."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."
"It's reliable for our day-to-day operations, ensuring fast and secure data integration across different systems."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
 

Cons

"Its stability could be better."
"It would be great if technical support for Apache were available in Iran. It is a very important need."
"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."
"There isn't a dedicated customer support available"
"There is a security-related problem that depends on the web server's configuration."
"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."
"I want the user interface to be more user-friendly."
"Lacks integration with some cloud solutions."
"The product's features are not being upgraded or enhanced by the vendor"
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is a free-of-cost solution."
"The apache software is free, open-source."
"There is no licensing cost for the product."
"It is an open-source solution."
"The solution is expensive."
"This product is more expensive than competing products."
"IBM software can be costly, but having a contract has helped manage and potentially lower costs over time."
"IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost."
"I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."
"The solution is expensive."
"The licensing cost of IBM WebSphere Message Broker needs to be reduced"
"The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Infrastructure solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Apache Web Server?
The product's initial setup phase is straightforward.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apache Web Server?
Apache Web Server is a free product, with no associated setup costs or licensing fees.
What needs improvement with Apache Web Server?
There is no need for substantial improvements as we have a dedicated team managing the server, ensuring everything runs smoothly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM WebSphere Message Broker?
IBM software can be costly, but having a contract has helped manage and potentially lower costs over time.
What needs improvement with IBM WebSphere Message Broker?
There could be greater flexibility and agility in service creation for the product. As our business requirements evolve, we require more dynamic capabilities to adapt and scale our services accordi...
What is your primary use case for IBM WebSphere Message Broker?
We use the product for exposing services at the application level, integrating with various architectures like WebSphere, and handling static service creation.
 

Also Known As

Apache HTTP Server
WebSphere Message Broker
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco, Intuit, General Electric, Adobe, VMware, PayPal, HP, EMC, eBay, Apple, SAP, Qualcomm, SanDisk, Allstate, FedEx
WestJet, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Sharp Corporation, Michelin Tire
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache Web Server vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.