We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Application Server and Oracle Fusion Middleware based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Server solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It does integrate well with the Tivoli Federated Identity Management system."
"We needed this type of integration and WebShepere is the best tool for it."
"WebSphere Application Server's best features include the data subscription and connection viewer."
"Without the Admin Console it would be very hard to configure JVM settings, JDBC datasources, mail session settings, and security providers."
"The solution has good performance."
"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."
"The performance is good."
"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."
"The solution is extendable so you can start with two cores and add more at any time."
"One good thing, which is a little bit common across all middleware products, is that you can build asynchronous as well as synchronous processes. The SOA part is where it can maintain your state for any state-full integrations. If you have failures, you can replay all that, which is a good part."
"Oracle Service Bus is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"Fusion Middleware's main feature for me is that it is quite flexible, and, as middleware, it provides us with all sorts of technology and application adapters, which makes it very handy to use."
"Oracle Fusion is stable."
"The most valuable features are Oracle Unified Directory and unified identity access management."
"The scalability is good."
"The solution is quite good for applying patches or performing upgrades."
"Installing or configuring a WAS server instance as a Windows Service causes a lot of problems, especially when the server needs credentials to stop."
"Sometimes, I feel WebSphere runs a bit slow. It might be loading unnecessary libraries, impacting its performance compared to other application servers."
"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."
"Initial setup is very simple. Just use the IBM Installation Manager and add the packages. The install wizard takes care of the rest. The only thing that can be difficult is to find the right packages on the IBM website, because of all the changes that IBM does on its website(s)."
"In spite of the solution's robustness, it is expensive and a bit difficult to support."
"The licensing could be improved, and I would like it to give the longevity of the lifespan of the visions. In the next release, I would like to be able to download and extract the files so that I can just use my application server."
"The current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application."
"The solution consumes hardware."
"The price could always be better."
"The documentation might not be good enough for new users."
"One thing that I would like to see is if this product can be containerized. We are moving away from virtual servers and moving more towards containerization to be able to quickly set up environments or have the flexibility of scaling them. It would be good if it can be containerized, and it works well in containerized platforms."
"All areas of HCM modules could use some improvement."
"Technical support should resolve issues more quickly."
"Oracle Fusion Middleware is based on the regulations in Saudi Arabia and the legislation changes. There is a need to be improvements all the time. It needs to adapt quickly in this market. Additionally, there could be some improvements in the construction sector."
"Its price can be improved. We are currently looking for more cost-efficiency. It should also have a little bit more flexibility for customizations. The customizations should be quicker."
"The main improvement must be made on the user interface. You need to use another Oracle cross in this product. It must be improved and some features of the connectors must be changed."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Server with 26 reviews while Oracle Fusion Middleware is ranked 6th in Application Server with 12 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8, while Oracle Fusion Middleware is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Compatible, stable, and scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Fusion Middleware writes "Maintains top database performance and includes a very good ATB feature". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and Microsoft .NET Framework, whereas Oracle Fusion Middleware is most compared with Oracle WebLogic Server, Tomcat, IIS, JBoss and TIBCO ActiveMatrix. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. Oracle Fusion Middleware report.
See our list of best Application Server vendors.
We monitor all Application Server 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.