IBM WebSphere Application Server Reviews

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. 

The only reason why we're currently using WebSphere is that the integration of the authentication with Azure is very quick. WebSphere has something that can immediately connect with Azure Active Directory.

IBM WebSphere Application Server hasn't changed much. It's still a heavyweight for any company compared to what you get. Unless your code base is deeply linked with it, I don't think it's a great idea to go with this solution.

The current trend is toward modularity and containerization, and given the product's requirements, containerization will be difficult. There is a memory requirement as well.

With the enterprise version, there are features we don't need, but if we did, they are available with the Apache package.

You can easily find people who know Tomcat, but you find very few people who deeply know WebSphere. There is a steep learning curve as well.

There is hindrance to testing, that is, IBM WebSphere Application Server will take 30 seconds to start, whereas Tomcat will take 2 seconds without any applications. That's a big problem.

The installation is very complex. The licensing cost also is 1,000 of euros for a 30-year table.

The product has so many problems and needs so many patches. It does not take the standard Java Development Kit; you need IBM 1 even though Java is supposed to be portable. I think there is barely any use case for IBM WebSphere Application Server.

I've worked with this solution for 10 years.

From what I've seen in the past, there are many issues with it. So I wouldn't say that it's very stable.

I've heard that it is scalable, but the problem is that it takes up so much memory already. So, if you're going to scale, it will gobble up more memory.

Usually, the scalability is provided by the cloud rather than the web server by using load balances. You would need many instances of that, which means that you will need to multiply by hundreds of thousands dollars or pounds.

At present, we have engineers who use this solution.

The installation is very complex.

The licensing cost is 1,000 of euros for a 30-year table.

We are currently evaluating Tomcat.

I think IBM WebSphere Application Server is a dead solution and will probably fade out. So, I would not recommend it to anyone.

On a scale from one to ten with one being the worst and ten being the best, I'd rate this solution at one.

There are two use case categories. We use it for integration with other parties or external parties across the world, and we also use it for internal applications. It has an enterprise service bus, and all applications talk to each other through IIB. We also using WebSphere for the exchange of messages between core banking applications and other applications and servers.

It has helped tremendously. Before we embarked on the enterprise service bus, we had to develop applications for integration with in-house and third-party applications. We had to develop an application and get a dedicated server. We also had to get the server within the firewall. There was no concrete policy around that, and it just was disorganized and disoriented. Now, we have a lot more structure. The time to market is a lot faster, and there is a structure around it.

As compared to other applications, it has tremendous support. We have built internal capability so that we use it extensively internally. It is also easier to use with the outside data. You can write in ESQL, Java, or any other technology that you want to use for development. So, it is a lot more flexible in the language that it supports.

It is very tough to get developers. It is not open, so there is a shortage of its knowledge in the industry. We have to get freshers and train them. We can't just go out there in the market and get developers who are proficient in IIB. I have attended several boot camps on AI and other products of IBM. Similar to what IBM is doing with big data and AI, IBM should open up IIB so that there is a lot more knowledge. They should open up the WebSphere application so that there is a lot more knowledge.

The business logic side of it is sort of missing in the sense that if I want to track and measure velocity, it is not really available. You have to buy another application and embark on a separate implementation. Instead of having different licensing, IBM DataPower should be integrated with WebSphere. It will allow us to build the business layer and rules a lot more efficiently, rather than developing rules within the application. It would be good if we can set up the business layer through parametrization rather than development. IBM DataPower has the business rule and the controls, and if it can be integrated, it would be fantastic. It will help the application in working better in terms of security features and business logic. If you're going to use it for open banking, you will be able to monitor velocity on the total pricing.

Its price is a bit expensive. They should improve its price to compete with other applications that are out there, which we are also exploring.

We've been using this solution for more than five years.

It is very stable and very rugged.

You can't reduce what you buy from there. You have to buy the whole product. It is highly scalable and extendable in terms of extending the feature developed to be used in other areas.

We have two sets of users. We have the developers and the support people in different teams. There are approximately 12 developers in the Developer team. There is also a Support team with six or seven people. The support people are in the CTO organization, whereas, developers are in the forward-looking arm of our IT, which is the CIO organization. That's the way we are structured.

They have partners who helped us with the initial installation, and we got technical support from them. The other one is the second level of support from IBM, which goes in line with their normal licensing framework. So, there is strong support from IBM.

It is complex. It is not something that you can do on your own without recourse to IBM. You need access and all the support and help from IBM for this. We need consultants who are proficient and IBM partners to do the setup. When you get the license from IBM, they have the recommended partners in a country to set it up. 

It is very expensive.

I would advise others to have a very strong partner who understands IBM WebSphere very well. They should be mindful of the architecture that they're going to put in place for the IBM solution. You should ensure that load balancing and the architecture of the implementation are right. Otherwise, there could be issues. Having a stronger partner for handling implementation makes life a lot easier and more meaningful.

I would rate IBM WebSphere Application Server an eight out of 10.

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.

We use IBM WAS Developer Edition in our development machines for free.

There is an Eclipse Plugin provided by IBM, so no need to buy IBM Rational Application Developer or Rational Software Architect tools.

Starting with version 8, WAS provides a special folder called monitor deployment. Once you put the .war or .ear file in there, it is deployed automatically without human intervention. This greatly helps us in our continuous integration server. Once the deployment binary is ready, we write a script to copy it to that folder and then, voila! The application is up and running and accessible from its context root.

• Stability: Once you deploy your application, it will be very stable with no issues at all.
• Ease of administration: It has an Integrated Solutions Console, what we call the administrative console, with very detailed configurations and Help pages for each configurable item.
• Up to date: Once a security vulnerability has been discovered, IBM patches it quickly, and later includes it in a bigger fix or update.
• Security: It is compatible with the latest Java 8 security features, supports FIPS 140-2 and NIST SP 800-53 with strong ciphers and cryptography keys, and supports TLS 1.2 completely. Also, configuring client and server certificates is relatively easy.

IBM needs to pay attention to market changes more quickly. We now have Java 9 and very soon Java EE8. We do not want to wait for two or three years after their release until they are supported by the new version, say WAS 10 in our case.

Installing or configuring a WAS server instance as a Windows Service causes a lot of problems, especially when the server needs credentials to stop.

No stability issues at all.

No scalability issues at all.

Very good.

I used Oracle GlassFish and Apache Tomcat but found them good only for small applications. Also, they need a lot of XML configuration and are not really production-ready.

The initial setup is straightforward and, thanks to Java and its platform independency, it requires almost the same steps in all operating systems.

You just have to install IBM Installation Manager, define your repositories, and click Install or Update.

If your application is just a web app that does not need to scale big, you can obtain a single core license of WAS Express edition, which has almost the same features with limited processing cores.

If you manage a very big application farm (i.e. need to run 10 or more WAS servers) it is better to get IBM WAS Hypervisor Edition.

I evaluated Red Hat JBoss EAP, but since we need to integrate with IBM MQ and the IBM Integration Bus, all in a mixed Windows/AIX environment, we found that IBM WAS was the winner.

IBM products, in general, need a lot of experience. They are very similar, have much in common, but to avoid getting into trouble and strange issues, it's important to read within the IBM Knowledge Center before starting. Also, do not skip any step in the installation/migration/configuration section, as it may stop you later, even without your knowing it.

I use the solution in my company for enterprise applications. We also implemented a virtual portal server based on the virtual application server, but it is a portal server version meant for customers, agents, and customer service.

For me, the most valuable feature of the product, I think, is the performance. The product offers good performance. I also think it is a very stable tool because no outside factors would affect it. Normally, the ports and servers were working very well. With its configurations, it could support more software integrations with different technologies. It was easy to configure. So I think it is a very good server for applications.

I think in some moments, the security was a little bit more complex to configure when it was delegated to other systems, making it an area where improvements are required.

I have been using IBM WebSphere Application Server for ten years. IBM WebSphere Application Server version 5.1 was the first version of the product that I used. My company is an end user of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten, considering the work or the performance that the server offers. You don't need to have a large number of nodes or resources assigned to the server in order to make it work properly.

I consider it to be built well because, whenever it was needed, new configurations were possible. The scalability worked as expected, and I have no complaints about it.

I think the scalability was okay when it was needed. We increased the configuration, and I saw that the tool's synchronization was good. I think it was not demanded a lot, but when we needed it, I think the configuration and the working process, along with the performance were okay. I think it was not a big problem to increase the use or to to configure and implement the tool.

The solution's technical support is good. Whenever needed, my company got support from IBM's technical team. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Previously, our company used to have a different tool from Oracle. My company switched to IBM from Oracle for better support, performance, UI, and stability.

I used another server just a few times because when I went up to the company, I learned we were moving to IBM. I have tried other servers, but they were open-source tools, so I cannot compare them with the IBM WebSphere Application Server.

The initial setup phase was very easy because it could be done directly out of the box, and most of the configurations were working fine. The read option for the application can be used whenever needed, especially when we need to make some configurations. The initial setup, I think, was easy to configure and get ready for developers and any environment, even with the production side. I think it is a good tool for me.

Any application can be deployed on the server in just a few minutes. If you need to make some configurations previously, well, or maybe if you can do configurations from the beginning, I feel the configurations could be easy. I think one hour is enough in order to deploy the application, considering the initial configuration. It is just we need to deploy a new application or a new version, for which it just takes a few minutes for the initial configuration, and the deployment can be done very quickly.

Only a couple of engineers were required to manage the initial setup and deployment processes. The engineer handled the tool. A specific person managed all the servers, so it was a team with a couple of people who had enough of the configurations and setup.

After the initial setup phase, one may need to make some improvements in the performance to correct configurations. There is also a need to take care of the updates and patches or anything else to keep the version updated. Even the normal maintenance is okay. I think just a few times, there was a need to create a ticket to tackle a problem.

I would recommend the product to others.

I rate the tool a nine 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. 

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.