We performed a comparison between JBoss and Magic xpa Application Platform 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."JBoss is a scalable tool."
"The solution has flexibility and stability."
"JBoss's configuration is straightforward and easy."
"The most valuable feature is the UI."
"The solution's support is very good for repairing components."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"We use JBoss mainly for application deployments and application servers."
"The most valuable thing about JBoss is how easy it is to install and manage it on-premise, making the process simple."
"The best feature of Magic is the development time. The time it takes to develop something is incredibly fast if you compare Magic with, for example, Java."
"Speed of development and database connectivity (MS SQL, Oracle, DB2, Btrieve/Pervasive PSQL, ODBC, MySql, and SQLite)."
"Being able to make changes to existing programs to comply with last minute changes in requirements, and/or being able to fix, test, review, and deploy new code in a manner of hours instead of days, definitely gives us a huge advantage over our competitors and this is only possible thanks to Magic’s speed of programming."
"Magic’s Database Gateway allows the logic of the program to be isolated from the underlying database. This provides the flexibility not only to move existing programs to different database environments without the need to change the logic in the program but also allows the programmer access to different databases without the need to know how to "talk" to them."
"The speed of development is the quickest for any tool on the market."
"Typically an experienced Magic developer can do the work of two to three experienced C#/.NET developers. Customers are amazed at how quickly most new features can be added and bug fixes implemented. I have worked for four employers - including myself - using Magic, and in most instances, bug fixes are addressed and deployed in under six hours."
"xpa gives us a fast development speed."
"What I found most valuable in the Magic xpa Application Platform is that it has a client-server and web browser technology that's perfect for company users."
"JBoss is not as reliable and stable as WebLogic."
"Logging-related issues in JBoss require improvement."
"It would be great if the product came with a feature where the remarks made on the board can be saved on an individual's laptop to make it more user-friendly."
"The stability of the solution could improve with Microsoft Windows."
"It can have automation features. Everybody is focused right now on automation. In terms of saving cost, automation is always the first thing that comes to light."
"The solution's documentation could be better."
"The solution could improve by providing more integration."
"The documentation could be better. When we have questions, we need to check multiple websites. There isn't one place listing a set of common problems and how to fix them."
"The Android environment is missing a number of functions for file/folder manipulation, sending receiving text messages (SMS) and the menuing options are limited. For now, it is left to the developer to write his/her own Java functions to include in the APK."
"Magic has a tradition, when it adds new technologies/features to the Magic development tool, to provide either no documentation or documentation that does not provide an organized approach for bringing this new technology/feature to experienced Magic programmers."
"The configuration of the xpa RIA mobile environment is complex and a discouragement to new developers. Also, Magic's documentation can be less than complete at times which leads to frustration for new developers. (I encourage new Magic developers to join the Magic Users Group)."
"The ability to display page up, page down, top and bottom buttons along the scroll bar would make my mouse-reliant customers happy."
"There is room for improvement in Magic's marketing and licensing. I would like to see more integration of web functionality."
"Throughout my career, I've encountered difficulties when integrating new technologies with Magic xpa Application Platform. In particular, when attempting to incorporate features from other development languages into earlier versions of the solution called uniPaaS. I struggled to integrate .NET components due to the limited options available. This made the process more challenging and complicated. I find it challenging to create a more user-friendly experience for users who may be comparing the system to other systems they have used outside or within the company on different platforms."
"Support is very bad."
"In the next version of the Magic xpa Application Platform, I want tables or small programs where I can directly add expressions. I can do it on SQL, but it would make life much easier if that specification were added to the platform."
More Magic xpa Application Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
JBoss is ranked 3rd in Application Server with 23 reviews while Magic xpa Application Platform is ranked 7th in Application Server with 10 reviews. JBoss is rated 8.4, while Magic xpa Application Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of JBoss writes "A flexible and stable solution that is cost-efficient compared to other products". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Magic xpa Application Platform writes "Fast development and user-oriented functionalities, but it needs better .NET integration and a completely different pricing structure". JBoss is most compared with Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server, IBM WebSphere Application Server, IIS and Oracle GlassFish, whereas Magic xpa Application Platform is most compared with Microsoft .NET Framework, Mendix, OutSystems and GeneXus. See our JBoss vs. Magic xpa Application Platform 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.
