IIS Reviews

We use the solution to build web-based applications and platforms.

The solution is easy to use.

The solution's scalability needs improvement.

It is reasonably stable.

The solution's scalability could be better.

The solution's initial setup process is straightforward.

If you're looking for a scalable solution, look at alternatives other than IIS. But it serves the purpose if you're looking for a small to medium solution. I rate it an eight.

I am working as a Software Project Manager for a software company in their Pharma Services Division and using IIS on Microsoft Windows Server for local deployment of our pharma related .NET application. It is built in C# and used for uploading and validation of pharma-related information in a locally deployed application by a team of data associates and data analysts.

The information is then transported after validation to the web database on Azure from the local database using an internally-developed desktop application.

IIS is the best option on Microsoft Windows Server for hosting and deployment of .NET applications, either in a local environment or on the web.

The graphical user-interface of IIS is very easy to use and helpful in the effective management of applications.

It comes with Microsoft Windows Server by default, which makes it easier to get started for hosting .NET applications immediately, with no hassles of installation and setup of any other web server.

The integration is the best, being a Microsoft .NET application hosted on Microsoft IIS running on Microsoft Windows Server with Microsoft Database Connectors and Drivers.

IIS has a very simple and user-friendly interface, which helps a lot in effective and efficient management. The simplicity of the interface helps the newbies to learn to manage it fast.

IIS needs immediate improvements, especially in the area of security management.

Having no support for other than a Microsoft environment and programming languages limits the usage of IIS in many cases.

The capability to host and deploy open-source applications would definitely add more value to it. There should be plugins to enable it to support open-source programming languages.

It also limits us in the choice of operating systems.

IIS should be enhanced in terms of its capabilities for monitoring and debugging.

I have been using IIS on Microsoft Windows Server for more than five years.

It is very stable in its operations, hence requires minimum efforts in performance management. It is easy to keep it alive and maintain server uptime.

We have found that customer support has always been good for cases that we have raised. It has a huge user community.

I have experience with Apache Web Server, WAMP, and XAMPP.

Being a part of Microsoft Windows Server, it is very easy to set up and manage IIS.

I tried Apache Web Server before implementing IIS.

IIS is primarily used for hosting and managing web applications.

The performance of IIS could be improved. Occasionally, we encounter performance issues with IIS where it becomes unresponsive and requires a solution restart.

I have been using IIS for six years.

I give IIS a seven out of ten for stability.

IIS is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The licensing cost is dependent on the usage.

I give IIS an eight out of ten.

We have around 15,000 people using IIS in the organization.

We require around three people for IIS maintenance.

I recommend IIS to others.

It allowed us to set up and use a Windows Server we had in place already to host our internal web page.

It is a lightweight web host that is easy to configure for simple webpages.

Finding different settings can be difficult if you don't know where to look.

Stability seems good.

We have not needed to scale out with it, as we use it for very lightweight things.

I have not needed to contact technical support.

I have tried other tools (such as Apache), and found that IIS is more stable and easier on the memory for low resource systems.

Initial setup is straightforward for a basic setup (e.g. one host hosting HTTP traffic), but can get more complicated the more features you want to add (e.g. Windows Authentication, HTTPs, web farm, etc.).

It is licensed with your Windows installation which makes it relatively cheap if you already have a Windows Server sitting around.

We also evaluated Apache, but found that IIS was easier to set up for what we wanted.

Give it a shot. The features are included for free with Windows, so test it out. If you are unhappy, it is easy to disable and switch to a different solution.

The tool shows us the operating systems where our servers and applications are running. 

There is an issue with the network. The tool's price is also high. 

I am using the tool for one year. 

I would rate the tool's stability a ten out of ten. 

The solution is fully scalable. We have around 10-20 users for the solution. 

The solution's setup is straightforward. The deployment took around two to three weeks to complete.  

The tool's deployment can be done in-house. 

The tool's pricing is on a yearly basis. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. 

I use the solution to research and help our clients with dashboards and reports.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its capability to create different kinds of reports and charts. It has an intuitive user interface and provides a lot of options for building reports. The solution is also very user-friendly.

The initial setup could be made easier.

I have been using the solution for six months.

Our clients feel that other BI tools are more stable than IIS. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is scalable. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The initial setup is a bit complex. Our clients manage their own setups.

The deployment can be done in-house. A team of three or four people is required to deploy and maintain the solution.

We have seen a 50% return on investment on the product.

We have to pay a license fee to use the solution. The solution provides multiple licensing options.

I would recommend the solution to others. I rate the product an eight and a half or nine out of ten.

We have a GIS solution from ESRI, ArcGIS Web Adaptor, and it is installed on top of IIS. It's part of ArcGIS Enterprise solution.

The graphical user interface makes it easy for users to configure the sites. 

This solution needs to be easier for cases where you want to have an IIS cluster. If you have several IIS solutions running, it is not clear on how to make them communicate to each other. Normally, IIS Web Server run independently on each server. To have "IIS cluster", currently you need to have a network load balancer (NLB) appliance running in front of them. We use NLB to distribute the load and have high-availability of IIS Web Server.

This solution is stable. However, because of the way IIS interacts with the application pool, it is possible that another application running in different application pool, can have an impact to other application pool. Theoretically, each application pool will have independent process and should not conflicting between each other.

This is something that we are looking into because we want to have IIS Web Server that can communicate between each other. So far, we cannot find this options inside it, anywhere on the menu.

In our office, we only have few people who use this solution and we don't have a plans to increase its usage. It is for internal publishing only.

But for our client, we implement this solution in production environment and so far, no critical issue happened to run IIS Web Server on it.

We have not been in contact with technical support. So far, we have been able to handle all issues.

The initial setup of this solution is simple. Even if you aren't familiar with it, it is not complex. If you are installing it inside Windows Server, it will take less than half an hour to deploy. In most cases, it can be done in fifteen minutes.

This solution comes included with Windows Server.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is to go ahead with it. This is a mature product that is suitable for production environment. It competes with the Linux-based web server, which has more features. However, Microsoft is becoming more friendly with the open-source community, so hopefully they will implement more advanced features inside IIS.

It seems to me that Microsoft has been evolving the product with one of the main goals to be ease of use. However, I think that they need to focus on handling the biggest load. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are a system integrator and this is one of the solutions that we assist our customers with. Our customers are primarily government departments, agencies, and ministries. These organizations are not very comfortable with using the cloud, so the majority of deployments are on-premises.

This solution is used for the customer's website or internal applications.

The areas of this solution that need improvement are monitoring, debugging, and troubleshooting. Having the monitoring as standard on the user interface would be nice.

There needs to be an easy way to escalate technical support issues beyond level one, quickly.

This is definitely a stable solution.

Scalability is neither here nor there. You can say it's scalable, but it's an open-ended question because you have to consider whether you can host an application or product for country-wide use. I'd like to say no, but it can be used as part of a scalable infrastructure.

We have contacted technical support, albeit rarely. I would rate them a six out of ten. It is not that they are slow to reply, but rather they are slow when it comes to understanding the problem. They often repeat the diagnostic steps that we have already performed.

The first level of support is not very good because by the time we speak with them, we are already past that point. This is because we do have experience and we can often solve the problems that are easy, or of medium-level difficulty. Consequently, if we have to open a support request then the problem is already difficult or complicated. We need to be able to escalate quickly. This is true in most cases, and the delay comes about because of the entry-level support people.

In addition to this solution, we have worked with Apache Tomcat for Linux.

The choice of solution is dictated by the customer's requirements. If it is a Java application then we need to use Tomcat or Apache. If it's a .NET application in use then you need to use the IIS. It isn't a personal choice, or whether one is better than the other. Rather, it is about the application.

The initial setup of this solution is very easy. The deployment takes between thirty minutes and two hours, maximum.

Usually, it will take one or two people to maintain this solution, including the website, if the whole infrastructure is Microsoft.

We implement and deploy this solution for our customers. We have an internal technical team for this.

This is a solution that I can recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.