What users are saying about

Apache Camel

24 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 7.4 out of 101

WebSphere Application Server

41 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.3 out of 101

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

Apache Camel

In my experience, Apache Camel was very useful for the main use case that we leveraged it for, i.e. wiring up JMS messaging. I found the less-frequently-used handlers and endpoints to be either less reliable, maintainable, or easy to work with than just rolling my own data transfer logic. I would stick to straightforward use cases where the XML configuration conveys the intent in a very clear manner, and avoid using Apache Camel to do large portions of moving data around that involve business logic or custom intermediaries.
David McCann profile photo

WebSphere Application Server

It may be good for big corporates. It looks like a big heavy elephant with lots of features. However it's slower and more complex that its competitors like Tomcat, JBoss, etc.
Manoj Prasad profile photo

Feature Rating Comparison

Application Servers

Apache Camel
WebSphere Application Server
8.0
IDE support
Apache Camel
WebSphere Application Server
8.1
Security management
Apache Camel
WebSphere Application Server
9.0
Administration and management
Apache Camel
WebSphere Application Server
8.5
Application server performance
Apache Camel
WebSphere Application Server
7.7
Installation
Apache Camel
WebSphere Application Server
7.9
Open-source standards compliance
Apache Camel
WebSphere Application Server
7.1

Pros

  • Open source, which is vitally important
  • Great integration with Java frameworks such as Spring Boot, allowing it to be deployed however you need to deploy it
  • Wonderful testing tools as part of the framework
No photo available
  • Robust application server
  • Ability to create multiple nodes and clusters
  • Very nice WAS console interface
No photo available

Cons

  • Documentation could use some work, sometimes it takes a bit of trial and error to figure out how to do something.
No photo available
  • Ease of use in terms of deployment, give simple interface to do simple stuff like Tomcat.
  • Some of the concepts are good for complexity that WAS can handle but could be simplified and better documented, like concepts of well and profile, context, etc.
  • Takes long time to start the server.
No photo available

Likelihood to Renew

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic
WebSphere Application Server7.5
Based on 2 answers
Ok to continue with increased usage and used to its various features.
Manoj Prasad profile photo

Alternatives Considered

We chose Apache Camel because it was lightweight, easy to get started with and because it had a groovy DSL since we were a grails shop when we started using it.
Akmal Muqeeth profile photo
IBM WebSphere is simply the best!
Orazio Ray Pensabene profile photo

Return on Investment

  • When we were looking to move to a service oriented architecture, Apache Camel got us started quickly. It continues to be the backbone of our integration.
Akmal Muqeeth profile photo
  • The costs can be prohibitive. But over the long run the benefits and increase in productivity tend to outweigh the cost
  • It makes deploying applications easy thus saving time and other resources that'd have been wasted
  • Enhances productivity
Frank William profile photo

Pricing Details

Apache Camel

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details

WebSphere Application Server

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details