IBM WebSphere Application Server Reviews

IBM WebSphere Application Server ensures that there's communication between applications from the customer side to the banks, markets, insurance companies, and even the retail industry.

What's most valuable in IBM WebSphere Application Server is its resilience. When you use the solution, you know that after the communication has been done, there will be no doubt that the data has reached its destination.

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.

In terms of stability, my rating for IBM WebSphere Application Server is five out of five.

IBM WebSphere Application Server is a scalable solution, but because it's a little bit more complex to configure, I'm giving the solution four out of five in terms of scalability.

The technical support for IBM WebSphere Application Server is a five out of five for me. The support is excellent.

The initial setup for IBM WebSphere Application Server is in the middle, meaning that it's not complicated, but you'll need some knowledge.

Normally, one person is enough from my side to deploy the solution, then another person from the customer side.

How long the full deployment of the IBM WebSphere Application Server takes would depend on various factors because it lies in the communication between the customer and the destination, so the solution is usually easy to deploy, but it could take days. Deployment is not difficult, but a common problem would be personnel availability or the person available to do the configuration.

In terms of ROI from IBM WebSphere Application Server, it's quite high, so I'm rating it as four out of five.

My company is on a perpetual or permanent license agreement with IBM WebSphere Application Server. There's also a pay-per-use option, but customers rarely choose that option. Most of the customers are on the perpetual license deal that's all-inclusive.

As the license cost is quite expensive, I'm rating it two out of five.

My company is an IBM business partner. It provides IBM WebSphere Application Server to customers.

I'm working on the latest version of the solution, which is version 9.3.

My team is responsible for educating customers about IBM WebSphere Application Server and for the documentation, but maintaining the solution is the responsibility of the customers.

I'd rate IBM WebSphere Application Server nine out of ten because it's a great product.

My advice to people looking into IBM WebSphere Application Server is to go for it. If you want a product you can have confidence in, and a product with good availability, then IBM WebSphere Application Server is for you. It's deserving of its price because it's a good product, so even if IBM WebSphere Application Server is expensive, use it.

The solution is very stable and robust. 

Management is very easy in the Network Deployment edition. The admin console allows one to easily manage many servers. 

In spite of the solution's robustness, it is expensive and a bit difficult to support, which is why companies nowadays tend to use more lightweight products such as Tomcat or cloud versions of the products. We are also moving to cloud versions and have a huge installation of IBM WebSphere as a legacy system. Probably, in two or three years we will migrate to cloud versions.

The initial setup is a bit complex, although easy management is possible once one has set up the environment. 

We have been using IBM WebSphere Application Server since its inception, starting from versions 4 and 5. 

The solution is very stable and robust.

This solution can be scaled with ease, as evidenced by our use of it with the IBM operating system. 

The initial setup is a bit complex, although management can be accomplished with ease once the initial environment has been set up. 

There are two IBM consultants who help us with the deployment. They are constantly with us. 

Our middleware team consists of 12 people who are responsible for the deployment. 

The solution is expensive. 

We have 80,000 PVU, as this is referred to by IBM. The licensing policy is based on the PVU base. The initial setup and purchase cost approximately $4 and $5 million. The yearly support cost accounts for around 20 percent of the licensing cost, which means that we tend to pay IBM an annual sum of $800,000, which is a huge amount. 

We are also customers of the product. 

In our organization we use the WebSphere Network Deployment edition.

We use this product in our core, internet and mobile banking, which means it is used by 20 bank tellers and eight million customers. 

I rate IBM WebSphere Application Server as an eight out of ten. 

IBM WebSphere Application Server is easy to use. 

The solution consumes hardware. 

I have been working with the solution since 2011. 

The solution is stable. 

IBM WebSphere Application Server is scalable. You can add multiple nodes to the application server. 

The tool's deployment is complex. The deployment takes three to four hours to complete. 

I rate IBM WebSphere Application Server an eight out of ten. 

This solution is part of an enterprise web presence. It integrates well with the Tivoli Federated Identity Management system, which works as a single sign-on mechanism for other e-services that we have shared with other clients. They utilize some of our authentication engines and they provided access for their users back into their system, however, the presentation and the web presence for it comes on the WebSphere portal solution.

We've had so many challenges with the solution in the last two years that it's a bit difficult to find highlights.

It does integrate well with the Tivoli Federated Identity Management system.

I'm not certain if the WebSphere solution was deployed by IBM. There are a lot of complexities in how the solution was actually built and deployed, which means troubleshooting on management for us is pretty difficult. 

One of the biggest issues that we've had is there are certain features that we required that were hardcoded into the solution itself. When you manage them for making any architectural or solution changes, it becomes very difficult and near impossible to do. With respect to that, we tried to change the SSL certificate that would be in use, and because of how we tried to change the SSL certificate, we tried to change the DNS mover that it was pointing to.

There were hardcoded elements in the solution that didn't make it very easy for us. At the end of the day, we just kind-of renewed whatever services that we had already ongoing with it, which was a duplicate payment with what we had from other sources. We couldn't take advantage of the shared resources that we had before. We now have to maintain it as an isolated instance.

Based on the field and based on the build that was provided, we've noticed a lot of constraints in terms of the performance now.

Due to GDPR and other issues, not everybody is able to utilize cloud services. That's something that people need to be aware of. The company needs to be clear on the business use case and how they need to maintain compliance with its policies and regulations. Some of the feature sets that we found a little lacking in this particular solution. By now they've probably changed the ability to embed and utilize the rich media content and web presence. 

Our site is basically little image JPEGs, and that's it. We have low embedded video. We have low dynamic speech response for mobile viewing, we have low integration or extension for mobile apps. We have low integration as well as for dynamic content of bits from other sites. For some of our clients who wish to display information on our website, we actually have to lift the content, reform our tips, and recreate it into the content management engine.

We first did a deployment back in 2008. It was an enterprise deployment where we wanted to get modules for forms and themes and gateways, especially an SMS Gateway. We needed to have different services. The IBM WebSphere solution was the only one at the time that was able to provide a full suite solution. 

We upgraded in 2014 and since then, we've kind of continued to utilize the service. In 2017 it became a bit cost-prohibitive for us to maintain all the different levels of support on it. We've just kind of been getting by with some third party support services and reactive support services.

Since we've been monitoring it directly ourselves, we've found that there has been an increase in the number of failures. The failures result in deadlock processes that generate very little to no troubleshooting logs. A lot of time we find ourselves just really staffing services to get these solutions to market in our online space. Reviewing logs to get the root cause and drilling down into something more definitive so that we could enable resolutions that are more permanent, that has been absent, basically.

When we exited the contracts, IBM did an audit of the solution and there were licensing entitlements that we had no information about. The products themselves could only run on specific servers of specific configurations, which we worked at up until the audit was done. 

The scalability in terms of company full storage looks fine. What we've realized is that the DB2 disappears, as there is an amendment and build. Therefore the IBM DB2 database has been less than optimal as we've grown over the last two to three years. And we've started to see this as a little more of a challenge, in terms of the configuration for the build as well. It doesn't support the groups. The license entitlement rarely gives us a bare minimum for the capacity to process what we have now. So the scalability of the solution is very limited.

The scalability for the solution was supposed to be for about 800,000 users. We just coming up on 100,000 and we're already seeing performance issues.

We have roughly 100,000 users and the majority of them would be using the single sign-on service to access our client services. We have probably about 20 to 30 persons who deal with user administration and content of this onsite maintenance and management in terms of web posts, et cetera.

The rest of them are really just users - either web browser users or users of the single sign-on.

The documentation around the product is not very clear, even post-implementation. IBM just basically cut us off and whatever we had was what we had. They weren't going to offer us anything. If we found gaps in the configurations or the documents, and we asked for the other stored information, nothing was forthcoming. IBM was actually very dependent on a third-party provider. There were a few instances where IBM directly handled either an implementation or configuration aspects. A lot of it was actually passed on to a third-party provider, who was the person that we used to know. A very small fraction of the price was what we were paying to IBM, in fact.

A Microsoft solution that was used between 2006 and 2008. I believe it was based on a SharePoint platform. It really utilized the IIS together with standard HTML features, et cetera. It looked good, however, it didn't have the expandability for the other service modules that we wanted to use at the time to expand to true competitors bid. The IBM solution would have been the most comprehensive in terms of meeting the technical requirements. 

The first deployment took about 18 months. That was in 2008. The upgrade took roughly six months, however, there were certain features and there was specific stuff we wanted that was never implemented. For example, the authentication system. While it uses our randomly generated 16 digit username, we wanted to do an alias for that system and we couldn't. I don't know what was the reason, however, it just couldn't be done. We've had issues as well with the file sizes being very bloated of using Blogger instead of any other optimized file storage mechanism. When the IBM deployment was contracted it used to run very smoothly. What we recognize now is that we're not set up properly and we're finding a lot of intricate complexities that we don't believe were necessary.

We used to pay about $100,000-$120,000 US or somewhere around there. That was a bit cost-prohibitive for us to continue.

You need to pay for both software licenses and software support, which was the IBM backline. There were two levels of support for software and software bots. We had hardware support, which was separate, and we had to proactively monitor service maintenance support as well.

The solution that we have now, one of the challenges we have is with the WebSphere portal. The WebSphere application and WebSphere content management software are no longer IBM products. IBM would have sold it off to ETL back in 2018 or 2019. Maintaining that as a full end to end IBM solution has become very difficult. They basically have a hands-off approach now. Anybody who's using this needs to be aware of what is available to them by way of manufacturer support and then other support. The licensing entitlements for the product need to be very carefully understood. There are limitations to the hardware configuration that goes together with the implementation.

The other thing is that we've recognized that there are few resources that have the experience and capability of monitoring this system. If you are going to deploy it, you should ensure that you either have strong and continued backline support with your vendors or third party managers or that your in-house team is well skilled in order to monitor and maintain everything and administer the system. If you can get to a point where the build, implementation, and commissioning could be done in house, that will give you a lot more visibility to all the different elements of the solution and how they integrate and interoperate so that it makes the management on troubleshooting a lot easier. 

I'm biased due to my previous experiences. My experiences are really more influenced by the build and not necessarily the product as a standalone product. 

I would rate the solution at a three out of ten.

We are mainly using it for managing the core banking applications. 

I am highly satisfied with the robust security features integrated into this solution. Its fine-grained access control, authentication, and authorization mechanisms ensure a smooth performance.

The main issue we faced was its limited compatibility with non-Java technologies, which can result in difficulty detecting potential bugs and requiring additional integration efforts. Third-party support can be challenging as well, as the IBM WebSphere Application Server is known for its limited community and lack of an open-resource library.

We have been using IBM WebSphere Application Server for the last six years.

The solution is very stable and reliable. 

The scalability is high due to its built-in load-balancing features. It allows applications to scale to handle high traffic and provide better performance. 

We have been fairly satisfied with their support services. When we requested their assistance, their team professionally solved it. The only objection would be regarding a minor delay in their response. I would rate it eight out of ten. 

Positive

The deployment is fast and efficient. It takes only one person to complete the whole process. 

IBM WebSphere Application Server is the best in terms of scalability and performance, as well as the support for managing distributed transactions. There are other solutions on the market, such as WebLogic, that offer great experience but it usually depends on the requirements of the companies.

We are pleased with the effectiveness of the solution. I would rate it eight out of ten. 

WebSphere Application Server's best features include the data subscription and connection viewer. 

WebSphere Application Server doesn't have an automated deployment option, forcing us to use third-party tools like Jenkins UCD and Palo Automated Deployment. In the next release, IBM should invest in automated deployment instead of complex building integration with different tools.

I've been using WebSphere Application Server for almost twelve years.

WebSphere Application Server is very stable.

WebSphere Application Server is scalable.

The initial setup is simple and takes under five minutes.

WebSphere Application Server is expensive, so it may not be a good option for small companies.

I would give WebSphere Application Server a rating of nine out of ten.

We sell IBM WebSphere licenses and provide core installation of WebSphere for our customers.

One of the most valuable features might be the stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server.

Most of my clients are quite happy with the WebSphere application, but I know that some are changing direction and the current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application. Since most of the application vendors our customers use also offer the application on Liberty, I think they're probably going to stop enhancing the WebSphere Application Server and instead concentrate on Liberty.

I have been working with this solution for the past ten to fifteen years. My company has been an IBM business partner since 1986.

IBM WebSphere is a stable solution.

I believe if customers want scalability, they can upgrade their WAS standard edition to the next deployment level, so it is scalable.

I would rate the technical support as a eight out of ten because the support could be a bit more responsive. 

Positive

I would definitely recommend this solution to users, but there is always room for improvement. 

We primarily use a generic WAS. 

We have WAS, which we basically use for JVM containers for services and REST APIs. We have some portal servers, and it is also used to host Pega. So it serves three primary functions.

It's an application server in general.

The thing about WebSphere, as opposed to other ones that I am aware of such as JBoss and Liberty, is that WebSphere has the most comprehensive scaffolding available to it.

A lot of JVM container products provide you with a raw JVM container and don't offer much else. However, WebSphere has the PRPC, which has extensive console capabilities, including the ability to control multiple JVM containers and the deployment. It's an enterprise-level product.

WAS is not what I would want if I were a small shop with two or three WAS servers or app servers. However, if I had 4,000 servers and wanted to install JVMs on them, WAS is a viable option. In my opinion, its strength is its enterprise capability.

One of the things that we have struggled with is understanding what's happening inside the covers when we're running a JVM. 

When we run into memory or locking issues, we resort to using third-party tools. However, it would be preferable to have native tools for debugging this type of problem.

It's not bad lately in terms of performance. WebSphere has always had some performance issues, at least until about three or four years ago. But it's getting better. I guess, aside from the product's complexity, I think it's pretty good for what it's billed as an enterprise application server.

I've spent the majority of my career working with IBM. Back in the late 1990s, I was working on WebSphere 3.0. So, for the last 25 years, I've been working on WebSphere on and off, or at the very least, the application service.

It costs more than some of the others, but, you get what you pay for. 

Much like TWS, IBM, the way they price their products is known as sub-cap pricing. It can be very complicated and intimidating for people who don't understand the concepts. 

I would like to see IBM simplify its licensing models.

Its best platform, in my opinion, is AIX on Power. Unfortunately, AIX on Power is being phased out. However, if you have a Power VM/AIX shop and are committed to Power and AIX, WAS is the app server of choice.

If you're considering ESXi or a hyper-converged solution, WAS works just as well on those platforms, the more cloud platforms.

For the space that it plays best in, I would rate IBM WebSphere Application Server a nine out of ten.