Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apache Web Server vs IBM WebSphere Application Server comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Apache Web Server
Ranking in Application Infrastructure
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM WebSphere Application S...
Ranking in Application Infrastructure
5th
Average Rating
7.8
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
Application Server (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Application Infrastructure category, the mindshare of Apache Web Server is 10.6%, up from 9.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM WebSphere Application Server is 10.8%, up from 10.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Infrastructure
 

Featured Reviews

Sakthivel Veeramuthu - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to optimize for high performance and handle heavy traffic
Most of the features I liked were related to the performance during peak hours. Because I needed to optimize the Apache web server to run it as a high performer during my customers' usage, then I needed to reduce my Apache web server resource usage for that. So that part of the thing is what I was more interested in doing. So, I mainly liked the performance and security.
Saleem Shar - PeerSpot reviewer
Compatible, stable, and scalable
IBM WebSphere Application Server is one of the best servers due to its stability and paid license. I have never encountered any issues when installing and deploying applications, as it never goes down. Currently, there are two versions of WebSphere Application Server: the old version, known as WebSphere Application ND, and the newer version, Liberty, which is Docker-based. I have experience with both and have never encountered any issues. I believe that WebSphere Application Server is a great feature.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Its community is its most valuable feature. Solving problems is easier on Apache because so many people know this product."
"It's reliable, configurable and generally secure."
"The open-source nature is one of its most significant advantages."
"Most of the features I liked were related to the performance during peak hours."
"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 product's initial setup phase is straightforward."
"It is scalable."
"The solution is robust. The connection management and the scalability, which IBM provides to the Stack, are also valuable."
"It does integrate well with the Tivoli Federated Identity Management system."
"The scalability of the product is quite good."
"This solution is easy to use with a GUI that is intuitive and very helpful."
"Without the Admin Console it would be very hard to configure JVM settings, JDBC datasources, mail session settings, and security providers."
"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."
"One of the most valuable features might be the stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server."
"The solution is very stable and robust."
 

Cons

"There isn't a dedicated customer support available"
"The GUI for the less experienced users needs some improvement. For some companies, it is hard to configure it if they have not had any experience."
"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."
"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."
"Its stability could be better."
"Lacks integration with some cloud solutions."
"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."
"The product's initial setup process could be easier for users."
"Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those."
"In spite of the solution's robustness, it is expensive and a bit difficult to support."
"They should make the solution more lightweight and not bundle everything into a single product."
"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 availability of the solution needs improvement."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is no licensing cost for the product."
"It is a free-of-cost solution."
"It is an open-source solution."
"The apache software is free, open-source."
"IBM WAS base is part of the deal when you purchase IBM FileNet P8 Content Engine."
"We pay around $200,000 annually."
"It costs more than some of the others, but, you get what you pay for."
"The licensing policy is based on the PVU base."
"The licensing cost is 1,000 of euros for a 30-year table."
"If your application is just a web app that does not need to scale big, you can obtain a single core license of WAS Express edition, which has almost the same features with limited processing cores. If you manage a very big application farm (i.e. need to run 10 or more WAS servers) it is better to get IBM WAS Hypervisor Edition."
"Room for improvement would only be in the licensing. As with all IBM products the licensing can be complex and expensive. Bargain well and try to get as much discount as possible. Discounts of 85% are possible. Without the discount, I think the product is overrated."
"The price of this product is higher than that of competitors."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Infrastructure solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Government
8%
Educational Organization
6%
Financial Services Firm
32%
Computer Software Company
12%
Insurance Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Apache Web Server?
The product's initial setup phase is straightforward.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apache Web Server?
The price of the product is an area handled by the procurement team in my company.
What needs improvement with Apache Web Server?
There isn't a dedicated customer support available for Apache Web Server.
What do you like most about IBM WebSphere Application Server?
Network Deployment is the most useful feature for scalability. It has many features within the standard WebSphere Application Server edition.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM WebSphere Application Server?
The product is expensive. I rate the product’s pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.
What needs improvement with IBM WebSphere Application Server?
I think in some moments, the security was a little bit more complex to configure when it was delegated to other systems, making it an area where improvements are required.
 

Also Known As

Apache HTTP Server
WebSphere Application Server
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco, Intuit, General Electric, Adobe, VMware, PayPal, HP, EMC, eBay, Apple, SAP, Qualcomm, SanDisk, Allstate, FedEx
TalkTalk, Property management group, E.SUN Bank, Ohio National Financial Services, Aviarc, Cincom Systems, FJA-US, D+H, Staples, Michigan Municipal League
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache Web Server vs. IBM WebSphere Application Server and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.