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."The solution is very stable and robust."
"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."
"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."
"Without the Admin Console it would be very hard to configure JVM settings, JDBC datasources, mail session settings, and security providers."
"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 VPN service is quite useful."
"The most valuable features are its user-friendliness and reliability in terms of application hosting."
"Oracle Fusion is stable."
"The solution is quite good for applying patches or performing upgrades."
"The scalability is good."
"The initial setup is easy. There are many self-tutorial videos are on the Internet, and then the Oracle documents are self-explanatory."
"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."
"It is really good in terms of features, and it is stable."
"The most valuable feature is the structure of the product. We use Oracle Fusion Middleware to manage the Oracle database. Registered users can go to each product if sign-on credentials match each user's identical framework."
"The solution is extendable so you can start with two cores and add more at any time."
"Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those."
"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."
"The availability of the solution needs improvement."
"Sometimes, I feel WebSphere runs a bit slow. It might be loading unnecessary libraries, impacting its performance compared to other application servers."
"In spite of the solution's robustness, it is expensive and a bit difficult to support."
"When compared with WebLogic, Weblogic is lighter and consumes less memory."
"The solution could improve the integration."
"An improvement for Oracle's Fusion Middleware could definitely be found in the SOA component. It's a heavyweight container and, if you ask me, if a product is available as a docker image where we can easily port it in to another Kubernetes platform, that would be perfect. But as for the current situation in the market, nobody is really willing to deploy this on premises."
"All areas of HCM modules could use some improvement."
"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."
"The documentation might not be good enough for new users."
"Oracle Fusion Middleware could improve by offering enhanced and customizable business-related features, particularly in supporting individual businesses or custom applications."
"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."
"Technical support should resolve issues more quickly."
"I would rate the stability a nine out of ten because we did have multiple breakdowns and crashes."
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 Oracle GlassFish, 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.