We performed a comparison between Apache Web Server and Magic xpa Application Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product's initial setup phase is straightforward."
"Most of the features I liked were related to the performance during peak hours."
"Apache Web Server is free of cost."
"Apache Web Server can be used as a proxy server"
"It's very stable, and it hosts one of the biggest of many biggest web applications in the world."
"The solution offers good security."
"The most significant advantage is the ability to swiftly enable HTTPS services when my DNS is configured correctly."
"Its community is its most valuable feature. Solving problems is easier on Apache because so many people know this product."
"Magic’s unique approach to development ensures that the programmer stays focused on the objective of the program (i.e. display all customers in California), instead of the repetitive tasks that surround it (i.e. connect to database, open customers table, create the query to retrieve records within the specified criteria, fetch the result of the query, connect it to a data grid, etc.)."
"xpa gives us a fast development speed."
"The solution makes the managing and adapting of the software very easy."
"Without the need to compile code, the time spent in the development cycle is greatly reduced, allowing the programmer to test modifications to a program immediately after they have been saved."
"The best feature of Magic is the development time. The time it takes to develop something is incredibly fast if you compare Magic with, for example, Java."
"Being able to make changes to existing programs to comply with last minute changes in requirements, and/or being able to fix, test, review, and deploy new code in a manner of hours instead of days, definitely gives us a huge advantage over our competitors and this is only possible thanks to Magic’s speed of programming."
"Magic is rapid, it's a tool which we use to develop, change and maintain our programs. xpa has a lot more features onboard and it gives us the opportunity to do such things so that we can easily adapt and maintain our programs. It gives certain benefits to stay with our customers and the market."
"Magic’s Database Gateway allows the logic of the program to be isolated from the underlying database. This provides the flexibility not only to move existing programs to different database environments without the need to change the logic in the program but also allows the programmer access to different databases without the need to know how to "talk" to them."
"For NGINX, I think it has NGINX Management Suite, which is GUI-based and allows you to manage your configuration via the user interface, but Apache fails to offer such capabilities to users."
"Its stability could be better."
"The GUI for the less experienced users needs some improvement. For some companies, it is hard to configure it if they have not had any experience."
"Things change very fast. We're always on the lookout for better approaches and tools. If the solution falls behind, we may have to switch."
"The product's initial setup process could be easier for users."
"In future releases, I would like to see better server optimization."
"There isn't a dedicated customer support available"
"I want the user interface to be more user-friendly."
"Magic has a tradition, when it adds new technologies/features to the Magic development tool, to provide either no documentation or documentation that does not provide an organized approach for bringing this new technology/feature to experienced Magic programmers."
"There is room for improvement in Magic's marketing and licensing. I would like to see more integration of web functionality."
"When you have several tasks, you open a screen in a task in developing mode, and you don't see the parent screens. Debugging lacks the effects to solve problems. You have to do it first in a kind of studio. Then you have to be sure that you can do it in Magic because there is almost nothing to debug it. It's practically impossible to debug. You have to be sure before you put your snippets."
"They want to be one toolbox for everything, but primarily, we are using xpa to develop desktop applications, and in that area they're lacking functionalities, flexibility, and modern stuff."
"The ability to display page up, page down, top and bottom buttons along the scroll bar would make my mouse-reliant customers happy."
"I would like to see a spell checker included with optional language support. Currently, this has to be purchased from a third-party."
"The user interface could be improved to be more friendly for developers."
"In the next version of the Magic xpa Application Platform, I want tables or small programs where I can directly add expressions. I can do it on SQL, but it would make life much easier if that specification were added to the platform."
More Magic xpa Application Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache Web Server is ranked 3rd in Application Infrastructure with 22 reviews while Magic xpa Application Platform is ranked 15th in Application Infrastructure with 10 reviews. Apache Web Server is rated 8.6, while Magic xpa Application Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Apache Web Server writes "Has good security, speed and traffic handling features ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Magic xpa Application Platform writes "Fast development and user-oriented functionalities, but it needs better .NET integration and a completely different pricing structure". Apache Web Server is most compared with IIS, NGINX Plus, IBM WebSphere Application Server, Microsoft .NET Framework and Zend PHP Engine, whereas Magic xpa Application Platform is most compared with Microsoft .NET Framework, OutSystems, Mendix and GeneXus. See our Apache Web Server vs. Magic xpa Application Platform report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.