We performed a comparison between Apache Web Server and IBM WebSphere Application Server 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."Most of the features I liked were related to the performance during peak hours."
"Apache Web Server is free of cost."
"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."
"It is more secure to use Apache and you will have fewer problems than other web services."
"The control panel is very easy to navigate. It's similar to most hosting platforms, so it's user-friendly. Once you get used to it, managing your hosting becomes easy, too."
"The solution offers good security."
"The solution's most valuable feature is reporting."
"The solution is robust. The connection management and the scalability, which IBM provides to the Stack, are also valuable."
"Network Deployment is the most useful feature for scalability. It has many features within the standard WebSphere Application Server edition."
"Ease of administration: It has an Integrated Solutions Console, what we call the administrative console, with very detailed configurations and Help pages for each configurable item."
"IBM WAS is extremely scalable. It is easy to add additional servers and to divide the load over servers in all kinds of ways."
"WebSphere Application Server's best features include the data subscription and connection viewer."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is easy to use."
"It does integrate well with the Tivoli Federated Identity Management system."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Portal Virtualization."
"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."
"A monitoring interface would be great for this product. The monitoring dashboards for Apache's models are not included in the basic installation. You can install the basic monitoring model, then connect this model to another monitoring system."
"By optimizing the infrastructure to allow the webserver to directly handle queries from memory—particularly by prioritizing the storage of queries in memory and processing them through the web server interface—I could potentially cut down the required instances from five hundred to two hundred."
"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."
"It would be great if technical support for Apache were available in Iran. It is a very important need."
"Adding a reverse proxy to Apache Web Server would be a significant improvement."
"There is a security-related problem that depends on the web server's configuration."
"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)."
"Sometimes, I feel WebSphere runs a bit slow. It might be loading unnecessary libraries, impacting its performance compared to other application servers."
"When compared with WebLogic, Weblogic is lighter and consumes less memory."
"Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server hasn't changed much. It's still a heavyweight for any company compared to what you get. Unless your code base is deeply linked with it, I don't think it's a great idea to go with this solution. The current trend is toward modularity and containerization, and given the product's requirements, containerization will be difficult. There is a memory requirement as well."
"When we run into memory or locking issues, we resort to using third-party tools. However, it would be preferable to have native tools for debugging this type of problem."
"The current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application."
"The footprint could be reduced so that we can use a smaller virtual machine to run the application. We could also use more scripts. I would like this solution to be more script oriented, rather than GUI oriented."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache Web Server is ranked 3rd in Application Infrastructure with 21 reviews while IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Infrastructure with 26 reviews. Apache Web Server is rated 8.6, while IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Apache Web Server writes "Has good security, speed and traffic handling features ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Compatible, stable, and scalable". Apache Web Server is most compared with IIS, NGINX Plus, Microsoft .NET Framework, Zend PHP Engine and IBM DataPower Gateway, whereas IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and IIS. See our Apache Web Server vs. IBM WebSphere Application Server 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.
