We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Application Server and Oracle Fusion Middleware based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Server solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Starting with version 8, WAS provides a special folder called monitor deployment. Once you put the .war or .ear file in there, it is deployed automatically without human intervention. This greatly helps us in our continuous integration server. Once the deployment binary is ready, we write a script to copy it to that folder and then, voila! The application is up and running and accessible from its context root."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Portal Virtualization."
"One of the most valuable features might be the stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server."
"The scalability of the product is quite good."
"The performance is good."
"High availability, alert management, and deployments are the most valuable features for us. We have the ND version so we can do deployments."
"The VPN service is quite useful."
"The solution is very stable and robust."
"The initial setup is easy. There are many self-tutorial videos are on the Internet, and then the Oracle documents are self-explanatory."
"Data integrity."
"The scalability is good."
"Oracle Fusion is stable."
"The solution is extendable so you can start with two cores and add more at any time."
"One good thing, which is a little bit common across all middleware products, is that you can build asynchronous as well as synchronous processes. The SOA part is where it can maintain your state for any state-full integrations. If you have failures, you can replay all that, which is a good part."
"Oracle Service Bus is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"The solution is quite good for applying patches or performing upgrades."
"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)."
"They should make the solution more lightweight and not bundle everything into a single product."
"It should be able to serve more concurrent requests like Oracle. Oracle has more powerful stability, availability, and real-time serving."
"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."
"The current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application."
"While WebSphere mostly supports IBM HTTP Server (IHS) as the web server plugin, I think it would be beneficial if it also supported Apache and NGINX web servers. That would give customers more flexibility in their choices."
"The business logic side of it is sort of missing in the sense that if I want to track and measure velocity, it is not really available. You have to buy another application and embark on a separate implementation. Instead of having different licensing, IBM DataPower should be integrated with WebSphere. It will allow us to build the business layer and rules a lot more efficiently, rather than developing rules within the application. It would be good if we can set up the business layer through parametrization rather than development. IBM DataPower has the business rule and the controls, and if it can be integrated, it would be fantastic. It will help the application in working better in terms of security features and business logic. If you're going to use it for open banking, you will be able to monitor velocity on the total pricing."
"The solution could improve the integration."
"Technical support should resolve issues more quickly."
"An improvement for Oracle's Fusion Middleware could definitely be found in the SOA component. It's a heavyweight container and, if you ask me, if a product is available as a docker image where we can easily port it in to another Kubernetes platform, that would be perfect. But as for the current situation in the market, nobody is really willing to deploy this on premises."
"All areas of HCM modules could use some improvement."
"The main improvement must be made on the user interface. You need to use another Oracle cross in this product. It must be improved and some features of the connectors must be changed."
"I would rate the stability a nine out of ten because we did have multiple breakdowns and crashes."
"Oracle Fusion Middleware could improve by offering enhanced and customizable business-related features, particularly in supporting individual businesses or custom applications."
"The price could always be better."
"Its price can be improved. We are currently looking for more cost-efficiency. It should also have a little bit more flexibility for customizations. The customizations should be quicker."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Server with 26 reviews while Oracle Fusion Middleware is ranked 6th in Application Server with 12 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8, while Oracle Fusion Middleware is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Compatible, stable, and scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Fusion Middleware writes "Maintains top database performance and includes a very good ATB feature". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and Microsoft .NET Framework, whereas Oracle Fusion Middleware is most compared with Oracle WebLogic Server, Tomcat, IIS, JBoss and TIBCO ActiveMatrix. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. Oracle Fusion Middleware report.
See our list of best Application Server vendors.
We monitor all Application Server 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.
