We performed a comparison between Apache Web Server and Microsoft .NET Framework 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."It's reliable, configurable and generally secure."
"The most significant advantage is the ability to swiftly enable HTTPS services when my DNS is configured correctly."
"Apache Web Server can be used as a proxy server"
"The solution's most valuable feature is reporting."
"It's very stable, and it hosts one of the biggest of many biggest web applications in the world."
"The best thing about Apache is that it is open-source, so implementing my platform on-premises is less expansive than other solutions."
"Most of the features I liked were related to the performance during peak hours."
"The solution offers good security."
"Microsoft .NET Framework reduces the cost of entry and enables the development of applications with mature and enterprise features, thereby lowering the entry barriers."
"As we are a software company, we find that accessing resources using this technology is easier compared to the others."
"Microsoft .NET Framework continually innovates, particularly in Visual Studio, which focuses on improving languages, debugging, and .NET functionality."
"User-friendly and straightforward."
"In-built refactoring and .Net profilers are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The Windows Communication Foundation is the biggest advantage we get from the .NET Framework."
"The new .NET Core has those middlewares, which are awesome from a security standpoint. With the old Framework or the newer Framework, middleware is basically an event pipeline. You configure and register it, and it handles things centrally. A simple example is logging. With the old Framework, you needed to try/catch blocks everywhere. Here, you configure the logging handler once, and it captures exceptions across the application. I really like the middleware pattern."
"Initial setup is straightforward. All the components are readily available."
"There isn't a dedicated customer support available"
"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."
"So far, for us, everything is okay."
"There is a security-related problem that depends on the web server's configuration."
"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."
"The major issue occurs with ports. So, I would like to see easier port management."
"The interface has room for improvement."
"Adding a reverse proxy to Apache Web Server would be a significant improvement."
"They could enhance support for Python within Visual Studio, as integrating Microsoft products with other frameworks can present a steep learning curve."
"Improvements are needed in .NET development, particularly in a backend scenario."
"Microsoft .NET Framework has a steep learning curve, which could be improved."
"The integration with DevOps tools, such as Azure DevOps, Jira, and GitLab, would be a valuable addition."
"The pricing is a bit expensive."
"In the next release, I am looking for more advanced technologies such as socket communication and enhanced features like realtime chat with the clients."
"One thing that could be improved is the tooling and IDE for .NET in non-Windows environments like Mac."
"In the realm of Microsoft .NET Framework, particularly in the C# language, there have been significant developments that I find highly commendable. I am genuinely fascinated by the continuous evolution of the language, and staying abreast of the latest features in Azure is both challenging and enjoyable. Working with C# in Azure is particularly fantastic. I appreciate in .NET, as compared to Java, is the enforcement of types, providing a better experience in terms of technicalities. Additionally, the introduction of Roslyn in the past few years has brought about the concept of late .NET, which I find interesting and powerful. This allows for the transformation of symbolic code just before execution, eliminating the runtime decision-making process and enhancing efficiency. However, late .NET does come with a drawback – a delay in the last-minute computation when starting an executable. While some may find this less appealing in terms of instant responsiveness, especially in serverless cloud environments, the efficiency gained from executing strictly binary code is valuable. Despite potential drawbacks like the time required for activation, I view .NET favorably for its technical advancements and efficiency, especially in scenarios such as serverless cloud computing. It's essential to recognize the intricacies of how .NET processes code and the efficiency it brings, which some may overlook."
Apache Web Server is ranked 3rd in Application Infrastructure with 22 reviews while Microsoft .NET Framework is ranked 4th in Application Infrastructure with 47 reviews. Apache Web Server is rated 8.6, while Microsoft .NET Framework is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Apache Web Server writes "Has good security, speed and traffic handling features ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft .NET Framework writes "Intuitive, easier to develop, maintain, and migrate from the old framework to newer versions". Apache Web Server is most compared with IIS, NGINX Plus, IBM WebSphere Application Server, Zend PHP Engine and JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, whereas Microsoft .NET Framework is most compared with IIS, Magic xpa Application Platform, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Windows Process Activation Services and WebLogic Suite. See our Apache Web Server vs. Microsoft .NET Framework 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.