We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Application Server and Microsoft .NET Framework 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."IBM WAS is extremely scalable. It is easy to add additional servers and to divide the load over servers in all kinds of ways."
"High availability, alert management, and deployments are the most valuable features for us. We have the ND version so we can do deployments."
"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."
"WebSphere Application Server's best features include the data subscription and connection viewer."
"The solution has good performance."
"One of the most valuable features might be the stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server."
"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."
"IBM WebSphere Application Server is easy to use."
"Microsoft .NET Framework reduces the cost of entry and enables the development of applications with mature and enterprise features, thereby lowering the entry barriers."
"The most valuable feature is customization."
"In-built refactoring and .Net profilers are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The addition of generics to handle common functionality across types, and the more recent upgrade of the dataset to the Entity Framework, has cut development time drastically, while increasing quality and confidence between builds."
"The technology is very scalable and accessible to use."
"The .NET Framework is a very good framework. It does what I need it to do."
"The solution's technical support is very good...The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The .NET Framework is easier to use because it provides a wide range of libraries."
"Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those."
"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 current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application."
"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."
"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."
"Initial setup is very simple. Just use the IBM Installation Manager and add the packages. The install wizard takes care of the rest. The only thing that can be difficult is to find the right packages on the IBM website, because of all the changes that IBM does on its website(s)."
"The licensing could be improved, and I would like it to give the longevity of the lifespan of the visions. In the next release, I would like to be able to download and extract the files so that I can just use my application server."
"There are performance constraints when multiple users are accessing the application and that consumes CPU resources."
"If AI could be incorporated in Microsoft .NET Framework it would be helpful."
"If Microsoft would provide a monthly subscription at a cost that a developer can afford then it would be really helpful."
"The cloud features must be improved."
"Microsoft could improve .NET Framework by providing more resources to help users understand the solution."
"The solution is difficult to learn if someone is learning it for the first time."
"The product’s reliability needs improvement."
"Difficult to scale this product for large organizations."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Infrastructure with 26 reviews while Microsoft .NET Framework is ranked 4th in Application Infrastructure with 47 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8, while Microsoft .NET Framework 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 Microsoft .NET Framework writes "Intuitive, easier to develop, maintain, and migrate from the old framework to newer versions". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and Fujitsu Interstage Application Server, whereas Microsoft .NET Framework is most compared with IIS, Magic xpa Application Platform, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Apache Web Server and Oracle SOA Suite. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. Microsoft .NET Framework 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.