We performed a comparison between JBoss Enterprise Application Platform and Microsoft System Center 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 convenient and barebone."
"The most valuable aspect of JBoss EAP is its support for clustering and load balancing, which is essential for our applications that serve multiple users simultaneously."
"Its technical support is excellent."
"The most valuable features of this solution are scalability and performance."
"The solution is quite stable."
"Stable and easy to handle in terms of hosting applications."
"The detail in the alarms is great."
"We like Microsoft System Center's Operations Manager. That is primarily why we use it."
"The deployment and asset management features are the most valuable. These are the product's main features."
"Good for managing and administering the infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it helps us manage our company's application pool, license pool, application update pool, and OS updates."
"System Center helps to create the basis for ITIL alignment."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ease of configuration and the easy discovery of the environment."
"Managment Packs for Microsoft-specific products, help us implement the best practices for each product."
"Improvement is needed in the synchronization between cluster nodes, especially under network strain."
"It's hard to find out the root cause of errors."
"Its architecture needs improvement."
"Lacks some functional requirements."
"A graphic user interface can be added."
"This solution needs better management UI."
"The multi-tenancy support needs to be improved. We need to have the ability to manage several different environments from one central point of administration."
"Implementation and integration in the case of multi-tenant environments needs improvement."
"The solution's dashboard needs improvement."
"They should have some customized solutions or internal development, then maybe it could be easier to use different solutions or some self-developed solution."
"We have some bugs but it's stable. It doesn't break every day. It works. Like other applications, it has a lot of bugs but they're manageable."
"The platform's performance could be improved. Additionally, its UI needs to be well-upgraded and work faster."
"Most of the documentation is online, however, there are some gaps there. The product documentation still refers back to the 2012 Server. We're pretty much in 2022. There's a ten-year gap there."
"Less server consumption would help, as would better, more flexible reports."
More JBoss Enterprise Application Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
JBoss Enterprise Application Platform is ranked 9th in Application Infrastructure with 6 reviews while Microsoft System Center is ranked 14th in Application Infrastructure with 18 reviews. JBoss Enterprise Application Platform is rated 9.0, while Microsoft System Center is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of JBoss Enterprise Application Platform writes "A stable and scalable solution that provides excellent technical support with a good response time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft System Center writes "Makes user management and application management easy for users". JBoss Enterprise Application Platform is most compared with IBM WebSphere Application Server, Microsoft .NET Framework, Apache Web Server, IBM BPM and NGINX Plus, whereas Microsoft System Center is most compared with Oracle SOA Suite and IBM BPM. See our JBoss Enterprise Application Platform vs. Microsoft System Center 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.