IIS Reviews

We use the solution for our customer's web applications. 

IIS needs to improve its security. Its support needs to be faster and clear. The tool's licensing could be cheaper as well. 

I have been using the IIS for 15-20 years. 

My company has 200 users for IIS. 

The tool's setup is simple. 

We did not use a consultant for the product's setup. 

IIS is expensive. 

I would rate IIS a seven out of ten. 

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.

IIS is useful for the deployment of web applications.

There aren't any particular features I found valuable since it is just used for deployment purposes.

Performance-wise, certain improvements in IIS are needed.

I have been using IIS for not more than a year now. I also sell IIS.

Its stability is good. People use it widely to host their on-premises applications, like, internal applications on IIS.

It is scalable if we include the application stack. IIS is not scalable. Its scalability is less. If we talk about its scalability with respect to the cloud, as we are seeing as of now, it's not that much scalable. We need to put some extra effort into making it scalable. Almost everyone who has a Windows server uses the solution for hosting their internal applications.

The solution's initial setup is a little complex, especially compared to what others provide. It is better than Apache.

If there are no issues, the solution's deployment can be done in an hour or two maximum. Two people are required for the deployment and maintenance of the solution. Also, it depends on the size of the infrastructure and the servers and everything. The requirement for the infrastructure is not that big. So two people are more than enough. One is the administrator, and the other one is the developer. But if there is a lot of development, then the people required for deployment and maintenance would depend on the size of the application.

The cost for IIS is already included in Windows services. We don't have to pay anything extra. We only pay for the Windows server.

I would tell those planning to use the solution depending on their requirement. If the requirement is for on-premises and in an isolated environment, then people install it on the server and start using it. But if the requirement is to go on the cloud and make the website public, then it is preferable to opt for the cloud.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We are using IIS got Active Directory and DNS.

We are using six core hardware from Dell to run the solution.

The most valuable feature of IIS is the database it provides.

IIS could improve by Microsoft Windows improving the update services. We would like to be able to update all systems that are connected. The WSA service has to be in good order to accomplish this.

I have been using IIS for approximately nine years.

The solution is highly stable.

IIS is scalable.

We have approximately 75 servers using the solution. We have plans to increase our usage.

I have not used the support from the vendor for IIS.

The initial setup of IIS is simple and can be done within one hour.

We are using the solution virtually and we did the deployment. We have two or three people who deploy the solution.

There is an annual license to use this solution and the price could be better.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate IIS a nine out of ten.

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.

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.

We are basically using IIS like people use SharePoint. Technically IIS is a configurable web server. SharePoint is meant to be a collaborative tool. We configured IIS to be a collaborative tool of our own design.  

The most valuable parts of IIS are the interface, simplicity, and ease of management.  

There are a lot of security issues with IIS, and this has become more of a concern, especially recently. That security problem is the biggest disadvantage.  

Scalability is also a problem. Microsoft needs to improve on that aspect of the product. There are many limitations on IIS that seem like they should not be hard to remedy.  

On the other hand, Microsoft is doing more to concentrate on Azure for the cloud solution, so it may be their intent that Azure is ultimately the better solution.  

Overall, I have been working with IIS solutions on the cloud and on-premises for eight to ten years.  

Recently IIS has been more stable than in earlier releases and it has gotten better as it matured.  

I do not think that much of IIS as a very scalable solution. It is used by our entire organization, which is about 1,000-plus end-users. But the product itself has limitations built into it.  

We have a maximum of two people who manage the product. We work with it somewhat less now because of the scalability limitations and security issues, so we also dedicate less staff to projects with the product.  

The technical support is neutral: not good and not bad. It has become less satisfying because they changed how support is handled and we have to depend on forums. We do not have direct access to Microsoft support, in other words. It is not at all optimal.  

Microsoft tries to divert from this lack of interest in supporting the product, I think, by providing documentation. We also use the community and go into the forums — the Microsoft TechNet forums — and then use Google as a last resort. For technical support on IIS, it turns out that Google is our best friend.  

From the beginning, we have been using Microsoft products as our base solution. We have Unix and Apache and those things in addition in the places where we need them, but we are mainly running on IIS and Windows.  

The initial setup was straightforward. That is one of the biggest advantages for IIS. It takes just three or four clicks and the installation is done. The whole process takes just a few minutes.  

Recent versions, especially IIS 10, are very stable. For the stability I highly recommend IIS.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate IIS as an eight-out-of-ten.  

We primarily use the solution for the internet and opening applications. We use it, for example, to access Outlook on the web. We use it for a variety of Microsoft applications.

The solution is very stable. The solution is very simple and easy to use.

The level of technical support the solution offers could be improved.

I've been using the solution for one to two years.

The solution is stable, but they could improve on it a bit.

It's easy to scale the solution. We have about 200 users using it currently.

We've been in contact with technical support. They're okay, but they could be better in terms of the level of support they offer.

The solution was easy to set up. It only takes about one hour to deploy it.

We handled the deployment ourselves.

The pricing of the product could be improved.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.