We performed a comparison between Jakarta EE and Spring MVC based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Java Frameworks solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Configuring, monitoring, and ensuring observability is a straightforward process."
"The feature that allows a variation of work space based on the application being used."
"Jakarta EE's best features include REST services, configuration, and persistent facilities. It's also incredibly cloud friendly."
"When we shifted from our legacy frameworks to the Spring framework, we discovered that Spring definitely made our development easier. One good example is that there is a lot of boiler plate code available that you don't have to write from scratch, making the development of web applications a much simpler process."
"The most valuable feature is simplicity."
"Spring gives you the opportunity to develop architecture in the simplest way possible. It comes with everything you would want in terms of security. If you want to access the database, you have the ability to do that."
"Spring has a speedy development process with a lightweight framework."
"Dependency Injection is one of the major features which makes our life easier using Spring. It is well documented and has active communities, which provide us enormous help."
"We have found Spring is easy to use and learn."
"The most valuable feature of Spring MVC is the configuration, such as WAF."
"We appreciate that this product is really easy to integrate with third-party UI services."
"All the customization and plugins can make the interface too slow and heavy in some situations."
"It would be great if we could have a UI-based approach or easily include the specific dependencies we need."
"Jakarta EE's configuration could be simpler, which would make it more useful as a developer experience."
"Adding more modules takes about 10 to 15 minutes each. It would be nice if they could reduce that part. The deployment time is a little high."
"It could provide faster performance."
"I expect the solution to offer and include a lot of packages so that it can be configured more easily or the speed level increases, thereby helping it overcome its shortcomings."
"I have recently had problems with the changes that were made using Spring Security."
"I saw some error messages coming up when they were getting problems actually viewing all the reports."
"The solution could be simplified quite a bit. It's unnecessarily complicated in some areas."
"The newer versions of Spring MVC have released a lot of features that we are not using right now because, in many cases, we are limited to running older versions. As such, it would be nice if Spring were to improve support for upgrading to newer versions, especially for legacy applications."
"Spring IDE needs some work and improvement. We have faced many issues when adding third-party Eclipse plugins."
Jakarta EE is ranked 4th in Java Frameworks with 3 reviews while Spring MVC is ranked 3rd in Java Frameworks with 16 reviews. Jakarta EE is rated 7.4, while Spring MVC 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 MVC writes "Straightforward setup, highly stable, and useful online support". Jakarta EE is most compared with Spring Boot, Amazon Corretto, Eclipse MicroProfile, Apache Spark and Vert.x, whereas Spring MVC is most compared with Spring Boot, Apache Spark, Open Liberty, Oracle Application Development Framework and Vert.x. See our Jakarta EE vs. Spring MVC 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.
