We compared Spring Boot and Jakarta EE across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Ease of Deployment: Spring Boot has a simple and uncomplicated setup process that can be completed quickly. Jakarta EE's initial setup is more difficult, especially when configuring it with Windows.
Features: Spring Boot is highly regarded for its lightweight framework, customization options, and strong community support. Jakarta EE earned high marks for its REST services, configuration capabilities, and ability to work well in cloud environments.
Room for Improvement: Spring could improve its load-balancing, documentation, and cross-framework compatibility. On the other hand, Jakarta EE could enhance developer usability by simplifying configuration.
Pricing: Spring Boot is a cost-effective option with no setup fees, while Jakarta EE has a moderate pricing rating.
ROI: Boot is praised for its ability to enhance customer satisfaction, boost productivity, and decrease development time. Jakarta EE is valued for its cost savings, standardization, and future-proofing capabilities.
Service and Support: Spring Boot's customer service and support receive high praise due to their large international community and quick feedback. Users rarely have to reach out for support because they can easily find answers online. Jakarta EE's customer service could be enhanced, especially in terms of making documentation more accessible.
Comparison Results: Spring Boot is highly regarded for its user-friendly setup, lightweight framework, extensive features, and strong backing from the community. However, it could improve integration, documentation, and performance. Jakarta EE excels in REST services, configuration capabilities, and compatibility with cloud environments. Its customer service leaves something to be desired.
"Configuring, monitoring, and ensuring observability is a straightforward process."
"Jakarta EE's best features include REST services, configuration, and persistent facilities. It's also incredibly cloud friendly."
"The feature that allows a variation of work space based on the application being used."
"It's very easy to get started. It's very quick. Most of the configurations are already available. So not much time is spent on setting up things. One can quickly set up and then get rolling."
"Spring Boot provides an all-in-one solution for the libraries needed to create a Win app. It covers all the aspects, including validation, security, etc. It provides all those features out-of-the-box. You can do almost everything with Spring Boot."
"The setup is straightforward."
"Spring Boot's most valuable functionalities include inversion of control, dependency injection, and the ability to gather all services, models, and controllers together for easy connectivity to your REST API, as well as the ability to build a modular response and request system. It seamlessly integrates with various backends, such as SQL, events, and messaging systems, making it a user-friendly and efficient Java tool. Additionally, it functions as a reliable business transaction layer, providing excellent support for front-end and back-end visual tools."
"It gives you confidence in a readily available platform."
"The solution is easy to use; I primarily employ integrated templates such as the REST template."
"I have found the starter solutions valuable, as well as integration with other products."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"Jakarta EE's configuration could be simpler, which would make it more useful as a developer experience."
"It would be great if we could have a UI-based approach or easily include the specific dependencies we need."
"All the customization and plugins can make the interface too slow and heavy in some situations."
"The current state of Spring Boot's cloud layer requires further development, especially for collecting Java functions for cloud platforms like GCP Cloudground. Having to write every single API request in a single class can be a cumbersome and time-consuming task that is not ideal for Java developers. Additionally, having all API calls in one class and making it the main class presents problems with package visibility. Therefore, there is much room for improvement in the Spring Cloud area."
"Spring Boot's cost could be cheaper."
"The solution could improve its flexibility."
"They should integrate the solution with more AI and machine learning platforms."
"The security could be simplified."
"Spring Boot could improve the interface, error handling, and integration performance."
"We'd like to have fewer updates."
"The services we develop are purely synchronous services, so there's a blocking and waiting state. This is a big problem in microservices."
Jakarta EE is ranked 4th in Java Frameworks with 3 reviews while Spring Boot is ranked 1st in Java Frameworks with 38 reviews. Jakarta EE is rated 7.4, while Spring Boot is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Jakarta EE writes "A robust enterprise Java capabilities with complex configuration involved, making it a powerful choice for scalable applications while requiring a learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Spring Boot writes "It's highly scalable, secure, and provides all the enhanced tools I need. ". Jakarta EE is most compared with Spring MVC, Amazon Corretto, Eclipse MicroProfile, Apache Spark and Vert.x, whereas Spring Boot is most compared with Apache Spark, Open Liberty, Eclipse MicroProfile, Vert.x and Oracle Application Development Framework. See our Jakarta EE vs. Spring Boot report.
See our list of best Java Frameworks vendors.
We monitor all Java Frameworks 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.