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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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 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. 

I am always working. I am working with WebLogic and WebSphere. Some things are running on WebLogic and others on WebSphere. I use both.

It is deployed on-premise, and I am able to do everything they are doing on the cloud.

I would not compare WebSphere and WebLogic because both servers are really good.

However, once you have set up both of them, they work perfectly.

There are always bugs, such as the recent bug with log4j, but they're both good web servers. I can make use of either one, it makes no difference. It's just a different setting, but I'd say the quality is the same.

I am satisfied with this solution, as well as WebLogic. Both are good.

The performance is good.

I don't think about what needs improvement, I work with what I have.

There is always room for improvement. But it's getting better every time, with every new release, and every new patch, it's getting better. They are continuously improving.

When compared with WebLogic, Weblogic is lighter and consumes less memory.

IBM WebSphere Application Server is a stable solution.

I usually solve my problems on my own. I Google it. I do the research, find out what other people are having problems with, otherwise look to Oracle for solutions to some of them. I was always able to Google it and find the solution.

I have never had to contact Oracle or IBM for support.

I have worked with WebLogic, Apache Server, and SAP NetWeaver in the past. I've had a lot of experience.

I set up everything. you just need the hardware, and I do everything else. 

When you purchase Maximo, you get WebSphere for free. Why would you pay more for WebLogic?

I would recommend using whichever is cheaper. Both are interchangeable, and I don't see a difference in their performance.

I would rate IBM WebSphere Application Server a nine out of ten.