We performed a comparison between IBM BPM 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."It is a stale solution."
"IBM BPM is a stable solution."
"The initial setup is straightforward and easy. I would give it a nine out of ten."
"We can scale by increasing the infrastructure which is currently running."
"One of the reasons for adopting this solution ten years ago was its ease of use. It had a lot of off-the-shelf functionality, and it did not need to be developed specifically for the project that we were implementing. That was the main reason for adopting it in the beginning."
"This solution is very stable."
"The case management and its integration with process design are good features."
"Enabled us to convert most of the paper-based work into an automated workflow process, and some of them were converted into straight-through processing, with no human interaction involved whatsoever."
"The most valuable features are its user-friendliness and reliability in terms of application hosting."
"One of the most valuable features might be the stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server."
"The solution is very stable and robust."
"It has good stability of the application server in the long term compared to other solutions."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Portal Virtualization."
"The scalability of the product is quite good."
"Network Deployment is the most useful feature for scalability. It has many features within the standard WebSphere Application Server edition."
"We needed this type of integration and WebShepere is the best tool for it."
"There are a few areas, like triggering mechanisms, externally exposed variables, and changing its values."
"They could provide case studies to investigate and understand the functionality of business processes before development."
"The front end is not customised for a good user experience."
"Consider an admin console during deployment. I would like to migrate single instances, not the whole bunch at once."
"This is technology, and there's always room for improvement. It would be better to have a single solution. Trying to have an overview in terms of this solution brings together the concepts of BPM processes, customer journeys, and an automation part for KPIs. All of this working together and coming up with a single solution with privacy is more commercial than anything else."
"The stability varies because it involves a lot of other components like databases, so sometimes if something goes wrong there, it can't recover from the fatal errors."
"The pricing is a little bit high. It's gone up in cost."
"The interface is limited and should improve in the future."
"The solution could improve the integration."
"The availability of the solution needs improvement."
"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."
"I think that this is a good product but I think that the cloud environment could be improved. I think that the future is in the utilization of the product in a product as a service way which is something that is lacking at this moment."
"While WebSphere mostly supports IBM HTTP Server (IHS) as the web server plugin, I think it would be beneficial if it also supported Apache and NGINX web servers. That would give customers more flexibility in their choices."
"Based on the field and based on the build that was provided, we've noticed a lot of constraints in terms of the performance now."
"Installing or configuring a WAS server instance as a Windows Service causes a lot of problems, especially when the server needs credentials to stop."
"The main issue we faced was its limited compatibility with non-Java technologies, which can result in difficulty detecting potential bugs and requiring additional integration efforts."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM BPM is ranked 7th in Application Infrastructure with 105 reviews while IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Infrastructure with 26 reviews. IBM BPM is rated 7.8, while IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Compatible, stable, and scalable". IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Appian, Pega BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow and Nintex Process Platform, whereas IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and IBM DataPower Gateway. See our IBM BPM 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.