IBM WebSphere Application Server Reviews

We sell IBM WebSphere licenses and provide core installation of WebSphere for our customers.

One of the most valuable features might be the stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server.

Most of my clients are quite happy with the WebSphere application, but I know that some are changing direction and the current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application. Since most of the application vendors our customers use also offer the application on Liberty, I think they're probably going to stop enhancing the WebSphere Application Server and instead concentrate on Liberty.

I have been working with this solution for the past ten to fifteen years. My company has been an IBM business partner since 1986.

IBM WebSphere is a stable solution.

I believe if customers want scalability, they can upgrade their WAS standard edition to the next deployment level, so it is scalable.

I would rate the technical support as a eight out of ten because the support could be a bit more responsive. 

Positive

I would definitely recommend this solution to users, but there is always room for improvement. 

This solution is normally used on the front-end of applications that we have in DB2 for IBM i. Our customers are in a variety of industries including insurance, financial, and retail. They use the WebSphere Application Server as part of their portal that talks with the database.

We have installed this application under several different operating systems including Red Hat Linux, IBM i  and IBM AIX.

This solution is easy to use with a GUI that is intuitive and very helpful.

You have the ability to do a lot of things with the commands.

Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those.

The main complaint that my customers have about this product is the price.

I have been working with WebSphere Application Server for between five and ten years.

My customers have told me that this solution is very stable and it is working well.

I have dealt with IBM's technical support on a variety of issues and normally it is pretty good. The response time is good and depending on the area, some support is more diligent and more effective than others. In general, I would say that they are above average, but the support could be improved in certain areas.

The initial setup is quite easy. You don't necessarily need to be a technical person. The configuration can be a little more demanding, but the initial installation is not difficult.

The price of this product is higher than that of competitors.

IBM WebSphere Application Server works well and fulfills all of the requirements that are demanded of it, so it is a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It's scalable and very reliable.

The incredible support that we get from IBM is of primary importance, that I see, because anytime we have a problem, help is just a phone call away.

I'd like to see the ability to build clusters made a little bit easier. It is kind of a manual process right now and this would just help save time and reduce resources.

The process is only partially automated and still requires significant manual effort to complete the configuration of an operational WebSphere cluster.

We have yet to max out the IBM MQ cluster. We have not been able to find the limits of the scalability yet.

We have used the technical support several times, successfully. It was great.

This solution was already in place when I was hired, so I didn't have a choice.

It wasn't easy, but nothing in IT is. The setup was pretty straightforward and any problems that I had, I was able to find the answers on the IBM Website.

It's an awesome solution. Compared to everything else that's out there in the market right now, IBM MQ is hands down the best solution available and that's based on 40 years of IT experience.

Invest in training. It's a complex product, but once you learn how it works, it's fantastic.

Reliability and the use of cutting-edge technology are important factors while selecting a vendor. Everything that's already in IBM MQ is state-of-the-art technology.

WebSphere Application Server's best features include the data subscription and connection viewer. 

WebSphere Application Server doesn't have an automated deployment option, forcing us to use third-party tools like Jenkins UCD and Palo Automated Deployment. In the next release, IBM should invest in automated deployment instead of complex building integration with different tools.

I've been using WebSphere Application Server for almost twelve years.

WebSphere Application Server is very stable.

WebSphere Application Server is scalable.

The initial setup is simple and takes under five minutes.

WebSphere Application Server is expensive, so it may not be a good option for small companies.

I would give WebSphere Application Server a rating of nine out of ten.

This solution is part of an enterprise web presence. It integrates well with the Tivoli Federated Identity Management system, which works as a single sign-on mechanism for other e-services that we have shared with other clients. They utilize some of our authentication engines and they provided access for their users back into their system, however, the presentation and the web presence for it comes on the WebSphere portal solution.

We've had so many challenges with the solution in the last two years that it's a bit difficult to find highlights.

It does integrate well with the Tivoli Federated Identity Management system.

I'm not certain if the WebSphere solution was deployed by IBM. There are a lot of complexities in how the solution was actually built and deployed, which means troubleshooting on management for us is pretty difficult. 

One of the biggest issues that we've had is there are certain features that we required that were hardcoded into the solution itself. When you manage them for making any architectural or solution changes, it becomes very difficult and near impossible to do. With respect to that, we tried to change the SSL certificate that would be in use, and because of how we tried to change the SSL certificate, we tried to change the DNS mover that it was pointing to.

There were hardcoded elements in the solution that didn't make it very easy for us. At the end of the day, we just kind-of renewed whatever services that we had already ongoing with it, which was a duplicate payment with what we had from other sources. We couldn't take advantage of the shared resources that we had before. We now have to maintain it as an isolated instance.

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.

Due to GDPR and other issues, not everybody is able to utilize cloud services. That's something that people need to be aware of. The company needs to be clear on the business use case and how they need to maintain compliance with its policies and regulations. Some of the feature sets that we found a little lacking in this particular solution. By now they've probably changed the ability to embed and utilize the rich media content and web presence. 

Our site is basically little image JPEGs, and that's it. We have low embedded video. We have low dynamic speech response for mobile viewing, we have low integration or extension for mobile apps. We have low integration as well as for dynamic content of bits from other sites. For some of our clients who wish to display information on our website, we actually have to lift the content, reform our tips, and recreate it into the content management engine.

We first did a deployment back in 2008. It was an enterprise deployment where we wanted to get modules for forms and themes and gateways, especially an SMS Gateway. We needed to have different services. The IBM WebSphere solution was the only one at the time that was able to provide a full suite solution. 

We upgraded in 2014 and since then, we've kind of continued to utilize the service. In 2017 it became a bit cost-prohibitive for us to maintain all the different levels of support on it. We've just kind of been getting by with some third party support services and reactive support services.

Since we've been monitoring it directly ourselves, we've found that there has been an increase in the number of failures. The failures result in deadlock processes that generate very little to no troubleshooting logs. A lot of time we find ourselves just really staffing services to get these solutions to market in our online space. Reviewing logs to get the root cause and drilling down into something more definitive so that we could enable resolutions that are more permanent, that has been absent, basically.

When we exited the contracts, IBM did an audit of the solution and there were licensing entitlements that we had no information about. The products themselves could only run on specific servers of specific configurations, which we worked at up until the audit was done. 

The scalability in terms of company full storage looks fine. What we've realized is that the DB2 disappears, as there is an amendment and build. Therefore the IBM DB2 database has been less than optimal as we've grown over the last two to three years. And we've started to see this as a little more of a challenge, in terms of the configuration for the build as well. It doesn't support the groups. The license entitlement rarely gives us a bare minimum for the capacity to process what we have now. So the scalability of the solution is very limited.

The scalability for the solution was supposed to be for about 800,000 users. We just coming up on 100,000 and we're already seeing performance issues.

We have roughly 100,000 users and the majority of them would be using the single sign-on service to access our client services. We have probably about 20 to 30 persons who deal with user administration and content of this onsite maintenance and management in terms of web posts, et cetera.

The rest of them are really just users - either web browser users or users of the single sign-on.

The documentation around the product is not very clear, even post-implementation. IBM just basically cut us off and whatever we had was what we had. They weren't going to offer us anything. If we found gaps in the configurations or the documents, and we asked for the other stored information, nothing was forthcoming. IBM was actually very dependent on a third-party provider. There were a few instances where IBM directly handled either an implementation or configuration aspects. A lot of it was actually passed on to a third-party provider, who was the person that we used to know. A very small fraction of the price was what we were paying to IBM, in fact.

A Microsoft solution that was used between 2006 and 2008. I believe it was based on a SharePoint platform. It really utilized the IIS together with standard HTML features, et cetera. It looked good, however, it didn't have the expandability for the other service modules that we wanted to use at the time to expand to true competitors bid. The IBM solution would have been the most comprehensive in terms of meeting the technical requirements. 

The first deployment took about 18 months. That was in 2008. The upgrade took roughly six months, however, there were certain features and there was specific stuff we wanted that was never implemented. For example, the authentication system. While it uses our randomly generated 16 digit username, we wanted to do an alias for that system and we couldn't. I don't know what was the reason, however, it just couldn't be done. We've had issues as well with the file sizes being very bloated of using Blogger instead of any other optimized file storage mechanism. When the IBM deployment was contracted it used to run very smoothly. What we recognize now is that we're not set up properly and we're finding a lot of intricate complexities that we don't believe were necessary.

We used to pay about $100,000-$120,000 US or somewhere around there. That was a bit cost-prohibitive for us to continue.

You need to pay for both software licenses and software support, which was the IBM backline. There were two levels of support for software and software bots. We had hardware support, which was separate, and we had to proactively monitor service maintenance support as well.

The solution that we have now, one of the challenges we have is with the WebSphere portal. The WebSphere application and WebSphere content management software are no longer IBM products. IBM would have sold it off to ETL back in 2018 or 2019. Maintaining that as a full end to end IBM solution has become very difficult. They basically have a hands-off approach now. Anybody who's using this needs to be aware of what is available to them by way of manufacturer support and then other support. The licensing entitlements for the product need to be very carefully understood. There are limitations to the hardware configuration that goes together with the implementation.

The other thing is that we've recognized that there are few resources that have the experience and capability of monitoring this system. If you are going to deploy it, you should ensure that you either have strong and continued backline support with your vendors or third party managers or that your in-house team is well skilled in order to monitor and maintain everything and administer the system. If you can get to a point where the build, implementation, and commissioning could be done in house, that will give you a lot more visibility to all the different elements of the solution and how they integrate and interoperate so that it makes the management on troubleshooting a lot easier. 

I'm biased due to my previous experiences. My experiences are really more influenced by the build and not necessarily the product as a standalone product. 

I would rate the solution at a three out of ten.

We have some services which are doubled up using Java. To deploy this research we are using the WebSphere Application Server. A lot of channel applications are consuming these services in particular.

The solution is robust. The connection management and the scalability, which IBM provides to the Stack, are also valuable.

Nowadays the industry is moving towards a more open-source operating framework.

The cost factor is huge. It's very pricey compared to other open-source stacks. In the future, we'll deal with the IBM Stack so we might move to a compact server and other open-source alternatives which are comparatively less in terms of cost.

They should make the solution more lightweight and not bundle everything into a single product.

The solution would benefit from having a different licensing model.

I've been using the solution for 12 to 14 years.

The solution's scalability is good, but there is a cost factor, which is a disappointing element. If you want to go for another node then you have to go pull up that code license model, and that produces another licensing cost.

We've reached out to technical support. I find them good, but not excellent. They aren't very quick to respond.

We were using WebLogic BL as our stack. Now we use an IBM Stack. It was about eight years ago when we switched, so we've been using IBM for a while now.

Depending on which platform you are on, the initial setup isn't too complex.

Currently, it is all straightforward, but it should be where the next generation of container-based, docker-based is and it's not there yet. Everyone wants that type of compatibility.

Deployment takes about two to three hours.

We have our in-house team who are trained in the deployment of IBM WebSphere Application Servers, so we didn't need outside assistance. 

The solution is very expensive compared to an open-source stack.

The solution is deployed in the UX operating system.

Although the solution is good, open-source options keep getting better and better, so I'd recommend others to look into that. This solution is expensive. So is Oracle. I find open-source more innovative and they often have a good community around them that offers helpful support.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher, but there are basic features that have minimum capabilities that can be very dissatisfying. Apart from that, they provide good support, offer a good clustering model that's reliable, and it's properly tested with certified code.

The most valuable features are its user-friendliness and reliability in terms of application hosting.

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. 

I have been using this solution for fifteen years.

This is a scalable product.

Technical support is available instantly.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

We use it as a gateway for our payment application. It receives requests and processes it. 

The most valuable feature is the configuration of the application server. It has a variety of configuration database certificates and connection pools. It has good stability of the application server in the long term compared to other solutions. 

It should be able to serve more concurrent requests like Oracle. Oracle has more powerful stability, availability, and real-time serving. 

WebSphere is not light enough to implement high available applications like gateways. But WebSphere has more configuration abilities and customizability.  

I have been using it for three months. 

Stability is frustrating. It goes down after a specific number of user connections. It does not have high availability. 

I have contacted their technical support. They offer good help to help resolve the issue. They were efficient and helpful. They have good documentation. 

I deployed it from scratch. It was not complex. It's easy to implement compared to other application servers. 

The implementation took eight hours. 

We require three engineers who do maintenance. We have an unlimited amount of users.

There aren't any additional costs besides for the standard licensing. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

It has a sensitive implementation. If you do a wrong step, it will destroy the whole thing and you will need to start from scratch.