IBM WebSphere Application Server Reviews

We use on-premise model, primarily for hosting a case management system.

We have about 3,000 users concurrently using this application. This application has achieved more than 99.9% up time which has resulted in increased productivity and efficiency.

Stability, high availability, alert management, and deployments are the most valuable features for us.

The computing resources required to run WAS could be reduced so that we can use a smaller virtual machine to run the application.

I would like WAS administration tasks to be completed via scripts, rather than GUI.

The solution is very highly available and very stable. We don't have any issues. We only need to restart VMs when we upgrade OS, apply WAS patches or deploy newer versions of our applications.

The solution is scalable to more number of concurrent users. Its ND version allows us to add more VMs. We have 3,000 users and we only need two WAS administrators. We don't have any plans to increase usage, but it's been very stable for long time.

Good.

The initial setup was complex. We needed an expert WAS administrator. We took iterative steps to achieve higher efficiencies.

In-house with experts from IBM.

Can't comment on the ROI, it has been very stable and provides very high availability. I guess ROI would be very high.

I don't remember the price, but there were no additional costs.

Use an expert WAS Admin to set up the deployment scripts and automating as much as possible. Implement DevOps concepts by working in conjunction with administrators and developers

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

There are two use case categories. We use it for integration with other parties or external parties across the world, and we also use it for internal applications. It has an enterprise service bus, and all applications talk to each other through IIB. We also using WebSphere for the exchange of messages between core banking applications and other applications and servers.

It has helped tremendously. Before we embarked on the enterprise service bus, we had to develop applications for integration with in-house and third-party applications. We had to develop an application and get a dedicated server. We also had to get the server within the firewall. There was no concrete policy around that, and it just was disorganized and disoriented. Now, we have a lot more structure. The time to market is a lot faster, and there is a structure around it.

As compared to other applications, it has tremendous support. We have built internal capability so that we use it extensively internally. It is also easier to use with the outside data. You can write in ESQL, Java, or any other technology that you want to use for development. So, it is a lot more flexible in the language that it supports.

It is very tough to get developers. It is not open, so there is a shortage of its knowledge in the industry. We have to get freshers and train them. We can't just go out there in the market and get developers who are proficient in IIB. I have attended several boot camps on AI and other products of IBM. Similar to what IBM is doing with big data and AI, IBM should open up IIB so that there is a lot more knowledge. They should open up the WebSphere application so that there is a lot more knowledge.

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.

Its price is a bit expensive. They should improve its price to compete with other applications that are out there, which we are also exploring.

We've been using this solution for more than five years.

It is very stable and very rugged.

You can't reduce what you buy from there. You have to buy the whole product. It is highly scalable and extendable in terms of extending the feature developed to be used in other areas.

We have two sets of users. We have the developers and the support people in different teams. There are approximately 12 developers in the Developer team. There is also a Support team with six or seven people. The support people are in the CTO organization, whereas, developers are in the forward-looking arm of our IT, which is the CIO organization. That's the way we are structured.

They have partners who helped us with the initial installation, and we got technical support from them. The other one is the second level of support from IBM, which goes in line with their normal licensing framework. So, there is strong support from IBM.

It is complex. It is not something that you can do on your own without recourse to IBM. You need access and all the support and help from IBM for this. We need consultants who are proficient and IBM partners to do the setup. When you get the license from IBM, they have the recommended partners in a country to set it up. 

It is very expensive.

I would advise others to have a very strong partner who understands IBM WebSphere very well. They should be mindful of the architecture that they're going to put in place for the IBM solution. You should ensure that load balancing and the architecture of the implementation are right. Otherwise, there could be issues. Having a stronger partner for handling implementation makes life a lot easier and more meaningful.

I would rate IBM WebSphere Application Server an eight out of 10.

We primarily use a generic WAS. 

We have WAS, which we basically use for JVM containers for services and REST APIs. We have some portal servers, and it is also used to host Pega. So it serves three primary functions.

It's an application server in general.

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.

A lot of JVM container products provide you with a raw JVM container and don't offer much else. However, WebSphere has the PRPC, which has extensive console capabilities, including the ability to control multiple JVM containers and the deployment. It's an enterprise-level product.

WAS is not what I would want if I were a small shop with two or three WAS servers or app servers. However, if I had 4,000 servers and wanted to install JVMs on them, WAS is a viable option. In my opinion, its strength is its enterprise capability.

One of the things that we have struggled with is understanding what's happening inside the covers when we're running a JVM. 

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.

It's not bad lately in terms of performance. WebSphere has always had some performance issues, at least until about three or four years ago. But it's getting better. I guess, aside from the product's complexity, I think it's pretty good for what it's billed as an enterprise application server.

I've spent the majority of my career working with IBM. Back in the late 1990s, I was working on WebSphere 3.0. So, for the last 25 years, I've been working on WebSphere on and off, or at the very least, the application service.

It costs more than some of the others, but, you get what you pay for. 

Much like TWS, IBM, the way they price their products is known as sub-cap pricing. It can be very complicated and intimidating for people who don't understand the concepts. 

I would like to see IBM simplify its licensing models.

Its best platform, in my opinion, is AIX on Power. Unfortunately, AIX on Power is being phased out. However, if you have a Power VM/AIX shop and are committed to Power and AIX, WAS is the app server of choice.

If you're considering ESXi or a hyper-converged solution, WAS works just as well on those platforms, the more cloud platforms.

For the space that it plays best in, I would rate IBM WebSphere Application Server a nine out of ten.

We are mainly using it for managing the core banking applications. 

I am highly satisfied with the robust security features integrated into this solution. Its fine-grained access control, authentication, and authorization mechanisms ensure a smooth performance.

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. Third-party support can be challenging as well, as the IBM WebSphere Application Server is known for its limited community and lack of an open-resource library.

We have been using IBM WebSphere Application Server for the last six years.

The solution is very stable and reliable. 

The scalability is high due to its built-in load-balancing features. It allows applications to scale to handle high traffic and provide better performance. 

We have been fairly satisfied with their support services. When we requested their assistance, their team professionally solved it. The only objection would be regarding a minor delay in their response. I would rate it eight out of ten. 

Positive

The deployment is fast and efficient. It takes only one person to complete the whole process. 

IBM WebSphere Application Server is the best in terms of scalability and performance, as well as the support for managing distributed transactions. There are other solutions on the market, such as WebLogic, that offer great experience but it usually depends on the requirements of the companies.

We are pleased with the effectiveness of the solution. I would rate it eight out of ten. 

I am always working. I am working with WebLogic and WebSphere. Some things are running on WebLogic and others on WebSphere. I use both.

It is deployed on-premise, and I am able to do everything they are doing on the cloud.

I would not compare WebSphere and WebLogic because both servers are really good.

However, once you have set up both of them, they work perfectly.

There are always bugs, such as the recent bug with log4j, but they're both good web servers. I can make use of either one, it makes no difference. It's just a different setting, but I'd say the quality is the same.

I am satisfied with this solution, as well as WebLogic. Both are good.

The performance is good.

I don't think about what needs improvement, I work with what I have.

There is always room for improvement. But it's getting better every time, with every new release, and every new patch, it's getting better. They are continuously improving.

When compared with WebLogic, Weblogic is lighter and consumes less memory.

IBM WebSphere Application Server is a stable solution.

I usually solve my problems on my own. I Google it. I do the research, find out what other people are having problems with, otherwise look to Oracle for solutions to some of them. I was always able to Google it and find the solution.

I have never had to contact Oracle or IBM for support.

I have worked with WebLogic, Apache Server, and SAP NetWeaver in the past. I've had a lot of experience.

I set up everything. you just need the hardware, and I do everything else. 

When you purchase Maximo, you get WebSphere for free. Why would you pay more for WebLogic?

I would recommend using whichever is cheaper. Both are interchangeable, and I don't see a difference in their performance.

I would rate IBM WebSphere Application Server a nine out of ten.

We use it for a web application related to insurance.

The VPN service is quite useful. Our main application runs on a close integration with Jira platforms. To access it remotely, we need WebSphere and a VPN server.  

Sometimes, I feel WebSphere runs a bit slow. It might be loading unnecessary libraries, impacting its performance compared to other application servers.

So, better performance is my main request.

My company has been using this solution for five to six years.

Once it's up and running, it's quite stable.

It is a scalable product. However, the IT team responsible for installation should have some knowledge of Unix operating systems since the platform runs on a Unix and Linux system.

The initial setup is relatively easy. The complete deployment time depends on the application. Some might take as little as eight hours, while others require more time.

We usually have a team of two or three people handling it. 

The pricing is a little expensive. I would rate the pricing a four out of ten. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

The solution's data consistency is great. It's very reliable. This is important for a transitional scenario. It is critical for us, so data consistency is the most important feature that we count on.

The user interface is reliable.

The scalability of the product is quite good.

The availability of the solution needs improvement.

The product should be more enhanced and responsive. We need to have the capabilities to customize it a bit more.

Their pricing is always too high.

The user interface isn't too impressive.

The stability of the solution could be much better.

The solution's technical support could be improved. They can be too technical and too detailed.

We've been using the solution for ten years.

The stability of the solution is okay. I'd rate it overall seven out of ten. It's mostly reliable, however, I believe it could use some major improvements.

The scalability of the solution is pretty good. I'd rate it seven out of ten. It's possible to scale a bit if you need to.

I've dealt with technical support in the past. It's not the best. It could be improved.

The initials setup is not straightforward. It's quite complicated. An organization needs some pretty good experience. They need a high skill level.

For us, deployment took half a year.

We're just users. We don't have a business relationship with IBM.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher if they offered more customization capabilities and was more responsive.

We have used it for the implementation of a web interface on very old mainframe system.

We've avoided the remake of mainframe application logics.

WebSphere connects with old legacy systems, like CICS and TX Series that typically run on the mainframe environment and that must be integrated with open systems.

Cloud service offering should be improved because the future is in the utilization of the PaaS provided by principal cloud providers; I mean that it would be very useful to have the possibility to use WebSphere as a service like many other tools has already done.

I have been working with this system for ten years. 

I think the stability of the product is very good. 

The main problem is the licensing cost of the product. The product can scale but the budget cannot. We pay for core utilization and so we have to consider and manage peaks in resources utilization. 

IBM is our mail provider for DC facilities, system integration and AMS.

No

The initial setup was very complex due to the complexity of the already existing business logics.

We implemented the solution with IBM services.

The system is very old so it is not so easy to calculate. 

The product is very expensive because PVU has to be calculated on maximun virtual cores and there is no difference between production and non-production environments.

No

If you need a small system that needs to be exposed on the web for simple transations, or if you are considering a cloud environment you should consider a different solution. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten because for complex system development, it is the best solution at this moment.