We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Application Server and JBoss 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."The most valuable feature of this solution is Portal Virtualization."
"Network Deployment is the most useful feature for scalability. It has many features within the standard WebSphere Application Server edition."
"The most valuable features are its user-friendliness and reliability in terms of application hosting."
"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."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is one of the best servers due to its stability and paid license."
"What's most valuable in IBM WebSphere Application Server is its resilience. When you use the solution, you know that after the communication has been done, there will be no doubt that the data has reached its destination."
"It does integrate well with the Tivoli Federated Identity Management system."
"The only reason why we're currently using WebSphere is that the integration of the authentication with Azure is very quick. WebSphere has something that can immediately connect with Azure Active Directory."
"The high availability is great."
"There's good documentation and a pretty good community surrounding the product."
"It is a Java-based product, so it is pretty straightforward. It is pretty easy from a developer's perspective. It is also pretty reliable and scalable."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The greatest benefit of JBoss is that it was procured by IBM, thereby offering exceptional support for our banking operations."
"The product integrates well with Java applications."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy."
"The support is fast and reliable."
"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."
"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."
"IBM needs to pay attention to market changes more quickly. We now have Java 9 and very soon Java EE8. We do not want to wait for two or three years after their release until they are supported by the new version."
"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."
"The business logic side of it is sort of missing in the sense that if I want to track and measure velocity, it is not really available. You have to buy another application and embark on a separate implementation. Instead of having different licensing, IBM DataPower should be integrated with WebSphere. It will allow us to build the business layer and rules a lot more efficiently, rather than developing rules within the application. It would be good if we can set up the business layer through parametrization rather than development. IBM DataPower has the business rule and the controls, and if it can be integrated, it would be fantastic. It will help the application in working better in terms of security features and business logic. If you're going to use it for open banking, you will be able to monitor velocity on the total pricing."
"In spite of the solution's robustness, it is expensive and a bit difficult to support."
"WebSphere Application Server doesn't have an automated deployment option, forcing us to use third-party tools like Jenkins UCD and Palo Automated Deployment."
"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."
"The solution's documentation could be better."
"In general, the support of the ERPC would be really good due to the fact that, so far, I have not seen it."
"Sometimes the console has a glitch."
"It can have automation features. Everybody is focused right now on automation. In terms of saving cost, automation is always the first thing that comes to light."
"The login process could be improved."
"Having the support combined with Red Hat support would be an improvement."
"The solution sometimes crashed and had some compatibility issues with the DevOps JAR file."
"The tool's documentation could be improved to explain its usage and functionalities clearly. Having accessible documentation would save time for leaders like me when juniors seek information about it. The documentation should be self-explanatory and guide users on how to utilize the tool."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Server with 26 reviews while JBoss is ranked 3rd in Application Server with 24 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8, while JBoss is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Compatible, stable, and scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of JBoss writes "A flexible and stable solution that is cost-efficient compared to other products". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server, IBM BPM and IBM DataPower Gateway, whereas JBoss is most compared with Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server, IIS, Oracle GlassFish and TmaxSoft JEUS. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. JBoss 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.