Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Oracle GlassFish vs Oracle WebLogic Server comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Oracle GlassFish
Ranking in Application Server
11th
Average Rating
6.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Oracle WebLogic Server
Ranking in Application Server
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Server category, the mindshare of Oracle GlassFish is 3.6%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle WebLogic Server is 13.5%, down from 25.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Server Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Oracle WebLogic Server13.5%
Oracle GlassFish3.6%
Other82.9%
Application Server
 

Featured Reviews

it_user517413 - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Lead Developer
Offers EE Support. I would like to see integration with MQ systems.
The products offers EE support. It offers ease of use. I would like to see integration with MQ systems.
Thomas Waltair - PeerSpot reviewer
Regional Head And Director Product Development at Neptune Software Group
Stable and scalable enterprise deployment with Cloud-Native support
Oracle WebLogic Server helps with my deployment strategy in both monolithic as well as Cloud-Native ways. I think it is useful; this Cloud-Native support helps with deployment in both on-prem and cloud. For container deployment, we are not very rich. We are in the process of moving our business logic to containerization. But in terms of this being a big product, a core banking system, I prefer on-prem rather than cloud. The use cases and the scrum help me a lot in an iterative, incremental manner. I would recommend this product; it is an enterprise, large volume, and of course, it is worth it to deploy. I am providing this review with a rating of 9.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The products offers EE support."
"Another valuable feature is the ability to automate tasks through scripts, making our environment highly efficient."
"I would rate Oracle WebLogic Server nine out of ten, possibly even ten points."
"Helps in efficient load distribution"
"It is efficient, not redundant, usable, scalable, and meant for enterprise applications."
"The only difference is that Weblogic is lighter and consumes less memory."
"It has good integration with security features, including OWASP."
"It's a very stable solution."
"What I find most valuable in Oracle WebLogic Server is its flexibility in administering and managing applications, along with the built-in dashboards that offer high visibility into vulnerabilities."
 

Cons

"I would like to see integration with MQ systems."
"This is a complex application."
"The error handling area in Oracle WebLogic Server is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Its pricing should be better. We are analyzing other options, such as JBoss, because of the cost of WebLogic."
"They should improve the solution's garbage collection feature."
"The logs consultant, since it tends to be more in the server, we do need complete consult logs for a lot of different files."
"Oracle's support team fails to understand the real problem of the customer, which is why they take time to resolve issues."
"Having clearer mechanisms to directly map a database-level connection problem to the corresponding WebLogic thread would greatly enhance the administrator's convenience."
"The tool's implementation should be easier. The product is also expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Pricing for Oracle WebLogic Server is expensive."
"As Oracle WebLogic Server is a product from Oracle, it is bound to be an expensive solution. My company needs to make annual payments towards the licensing costs attached to the product."
"It is expensive."
"The tool's pricing is yearly."
"The licensing of the product is expensive"
"The solution's licensing is high-priced."
"The licensing fees are annual and depend on the model."
"I would not compare WebSphere and WebLogic because both servers are really good. The only difference is that Weblogic is lighter and consumes less memory."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Server solutions are best for your needs.
880,481 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
17%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise17
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Oracle WebLogic Server?
I am not sure at this stage about any areas for improvement.
What is your primary use case for Oracle WebLogic Server?
The main purposes for which I use Oracle WebLogic Server is for enterprise deployment. It is an enterprise application deployment. I work with Cloud-Native support in Oracle WebLogic Server. We are...
 

Also Known As

GlassFish
WebLogic Application Server
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TravelMuse, Clarity Accounting
Colab Consulting Pty. Ltd., Infosys Ltd., Sascar, Banca Transilvania, UL, Center for Railway Information Systems, SPAR Austria Group, Reliance Commercial Finance, Industrial Bank of Korea, Al Jaber Group, Safe Water Kenya, Chhattisgarh Infotech and Biotech Promotion Society
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Red Hat, Oracle and others in Application Server. Updated: January 2026.
880,481 professionals have used our research since 2012.