We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Application Server and Microsoft .NET Framework 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 solution is very stable and robust."
"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 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."
"The performance is good."
"WebSphere Application Server's best features include the data subscription and connection viewer."
"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."
"What's most valuable in IBM WebSphere Application Server is its resilience. When you use the solution, you know that after the communication has been done, there will be no doubt that the data has reached its destination."
"The solution has good performance."
"Pre-programmed functions for .NET Framework are widely available."
"The solution is not limited in storage, is customizable and simple to use."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Microsoft Platform is the only viable solution when I wish to do something that is not supposed to be cross-platform."
"User-friendly and straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is customization."
"The .NET Framework is a very good framework. It does what I need it to do."
"I like that ASP.NET is used for the framework and the core web services."
"The licensing could be improved, and I would like it to give the longevity of the lifespan of the visions. In the next release, I would like to be able to download and extract the files so that I can just use my application server."
"In spite of the solution's robustness, it is expensive and a bit difficult to support."
"The solution could improve the integration."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server hasn't changed much. It's still a heavyweight for any company compared to what you get. Unless your code base is deeply linked with it, I don't think it's a great idea to go with this solution. The current trend is toward modularity and containerization, and given the product's requirements, containerization will be difficult. There is a memory requirement as well."
"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."
"The current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application."
"What could be improved in IBM WebSphere Application Server is its interconnection with other products, for example, Kafka. What I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is a better graphical user interface."
"When compared with WebLogic, Weblogic is lighter and consumes less memory."
"I would like more web integration."
"It is of great concern to us that the solution is not very powerful on cross platform, at it impedes the ability to build and scale with it."
"Microsoft could improve .NET Framework by providing more resources to help users understand the solution."
"I would like to see a better response time from the technical support."
"There are performance constraints when multiple users are accessing the application and that consumes CPU resources."
"The solution could improve by optimizing the memory for better performance."
"Difficult to scale this product for large organizations."
"This solution is best used with some training."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Infrastructure with 10 reviews while Microsoft .NET Framework is ranked 6th in Application Infrastructure with 8 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.6, while Microsoft .NET Framework is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Very stable, supports many languages, and helpful for faster time to market". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft .NET Framework writes "Lacks adequate cross-platform performance and interoperability with AS400, but is the only viable solution for non-cross-platform tasks and works smoothly with Microsoft Technologies". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server, JBoss and IBM DataPower Gateway, whereas Microsoft .NET Framework is most compared with Apache Web Server, SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal, IIS, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform and NGINX Plus. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. Microsoft .NET Framework 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.
