We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Application Server and Windows Process Activation Services based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, F5, Apache and others in Application Infrastructure."The most valuable features are its user-friendliness and reliability in terms of application hosting."
"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."
"The solution is very stable and robust."
"It has good stability of the application server in the long term compared to other solutions."
"Without the Admin Console it would be very hard to configure JVM settings, JDBC datasources, mail session settings, and security providers."
"Network Deployment is the most useful feature for scalability. It has many features within the standard WebSphere Application Server edition."
"The solution is robust. The connection management and the scalability, which IBM provides to the Stack, are also valuable."
"The VPN service is quite useful."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the central console, that allows you to see all of the activated and deactivated computers."
"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."
"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."
"Sometimes, I feel WebSphere runs a bit slow. It might be loading unnecessary libraries, impacting its performance compared to other application servers."
"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."
"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."
"WebSphere Application Server doesn't have an automated deployment option, forcing us to use third-party tools like Jenkins UCD and Palo Automated Deployment."
"It should be able to serve more concurrent requests like Oracle. Oracle has more powerful stability, availability, and real-time serving."
"The availability of the solution needs improvement."
"The stability of the solution needs improvement."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Infrastructure with 26 reviews while Windows Process Activation Services is ranked 23rd in Application Infrastructure. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8, while Windows Process Activation Services is rated 4.0. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Compatible, stable, and scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Windows Process Activation Services writes "Central console enables us to see all of the activated and deactivated computers but it has poor alerts and frustrating technical support". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and IBM BPM, whereas Windows Process Activation Services is most compared with Microsoft .NET Framework and IIS.
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.