Apache Web Server (Apache HTTP Server) is an open source HTTP web server for modern operating systems including UNIX and Windows.
N/A
IBM WebSphere Hybrid Edition
Score 7.4 out of 10
N/A
WebSphere Hybrid Edition from IBM is a collection of WebSphere application runtimes and modernization tools that provides support for on-premise and major public cloud deployments, in virtual machines, containers and Kubernetes. The user can choose any WebSphere edition and deploy Liberty and application modernization tools to help move to a cloud-native architecture, modernize existing applications and support an existing WebSphere estate.
$88.50
per month
NGINX
Score 9.2 out of 10
Mid-Size Companies (51-1,000 employees)
NGINX, a business unit of F5 Networks, powers over 65% of the world's busiest websites and web applications. NGINX started out as an open source web server and reverse proxy, built to be faster and more efficient than Apache. Over the years, NGINX has built a suite of infrastructure software products o tackle some of the biggest challenges in managing high-transaction applications. NGINX offers a suite of products to form the core of what organizations need to create…
Both Nginx and Apache are trying to accomplish the same thing, with the exception that Nginx is a much faster product. It allows for multi-threading which spreads out the traffic around the server. Apache is typically enabled by default and due to the high volume of websites …
Apache is often used in conjunction with Nginx, with Nginx in front of Apache to serve static assets like CSS and JS. Both are easy to configure. IIS is pretty cumbersome and is not as flexible as Apache.
We chose Apache because it handles dynamic content better than Nginx and it's very well supported. Nginx does handle high traffic sites better, but most of our sites do not get thousands of visitors or more a day as we are a small company serving niche markets. It is notable …
Against Nginx: Mainly- it's been in the field the longest. There's not really a reason to move to Nginxon it's own. Apache has a mountain of documentation and how-tos that extend from the Foundation itself, to Individual Developers, spanning over 20 years, and most of it …
To be quite honest I often select Apache because it is the world's most commonly used web server and I have been using it for more than 20 years across many organizations. I have never been burned using Apache. Apache rises above IIS in functionality, configurability, and the …
Apache lacks the scalability and feature set of NGINX but our team was not only far more experienced with Apache HTTP Server but was relying on tools and frameworks that required Apache HTTP Server. We've recently considered moving to NGINX but the workload to migrate and train …
Apache is more simple, also it tends to be more stable and it is less complicated to use, comparing with other complex solutions that are difficult to troubleshot. So wherever possible I select Apache HTTP Server for own/enterprise use also advise consumers to select the Apache …
The comparison with other products from IBM or Oracle is difficult. These are mostly software that has to be paid for. The only fair comparison at eye level is probably the NGINX web server: It is also free and offers even higher performance. In the meantime, there is also a …
I have loved Apache and the brief experience I had with IIS wasn't as good. Nginx I have heard good things and though we use it heavily for our servers now without problems, I haven't configured it myself.
Apache HTTP Server has more stability and features than the other products. It is also more secure. Apache HTTP Server has a more developer base so it is easier to find resources on it.
Oracle WebLogic /Tuxedo is great when you are using it to install Oracle stack on top including other Oracle middleware and applications. Similarly, if you have IBM applications that need to be configured with IBM DB2, IBM WebSphere is better than Apache Web Server. Red Hat …
Apache Web Server is the oldest among all of these above-mentioned web server solutions provide a wider range of tools and support available which is of great help when creating a web app because less investment of time and money is what contributes to the success of a project …
I've used Microsoft's IIS and IBM's HTTP server. The major and a clear advantage of Apache web server over these products is that it’s free and has no licensing issues. Being in the industry for quite sometime (oldest web server) a lot of products and customizations have been …
MS IIS and Apache HTTP Server both provide many similar services. However the configuration simplicity, and performance characteristics helped us choose NGINX above the other 2 products.
Apache is a market leader but NGINX is new and has new features. Lightweight and can handle static requests. We use EC2 and I believe NGINX is more suited when it comes to scalability.
Nnginx is more light-weight than many other web servers, has a very expressive configuration language, easier to configure than tools like IIS and Apache, easy to install certificates for SSL, much easier to model complex routing scenarios than IIS, easier to configure than …
I have found that [NGINX] seems to perform better throughout the years with less issues although I've used Apache more. I would definitely recommend [NGINX] for any high volume site and I've seen this to usually be the case from most provided web hosts who will pick [NGINX] …
NGINX Stacks up at the top for me because it's fast, reliable, and secure and apache is also usable but not so good in comparison to NGINX and since I and my organization have switched to NGINX I also don't want to look back at apache as NGINX works the best for our use case …
NGINX's footprint is much smaller than Apache, and it's great for serving up static content. The URL rewriting was not as familiar as Apache, but just as powerful once configured correctly. As a load balancer, it's much more affordable than Citrix ADC. We used the load …
Compared to Apache, NGINX is much lighter on resource consumption, and also far faster as a server, serving static content over twice as fast in most benchmark tests. NGINX doesn't offer as much potential configuration and customization as Apache, however, so if these advanced …
Nginx's cache mechanism is better than Apache and HAProxy. Also Nginx is very light weight and works for multiple sites with much less work. i.e. As front end proxy server configuration is very easy as compared to other applications. Apache sometimes crashes and is not able to …
Other Web servers are either not performant enough or locked to a platform. The main competitor in my opinion is the Apache Web Server, that can be extended in functionality through a diverse set of modules to perform almost any task related to a network server. But at scale, I …
I selected Nginx because it is easy to learn, use, and maintain. I almost never have to troubleshoot it ever since I deploy it. It just meets my need for a personal learning experience. It works well with PHP and MySQL on Linux. That is why I chose it at first.
Microsoft IIS server is not open source and it comes with its own overhead in terms of cost which is not the case with Nginx as we do not need to purchase a handful of other products in order to get an HTTP server up and running. If I compare it to Apache Server, it …
Nginx works on basic operating system principles and what I like the most about it is that even after being feature-rich and easily customizable it uses minimum resources.
Apache has the advantage of being very widely supported and well-known, which makes integration with various tools and software simple, whereas Nginx often requires manual configuration to achieve the same thing. However, the ease of use, configurability, and relatively small …
Apache is still widely used by the software community and can accomplish many of the same things Nginx can. Nginx is a better solution when you are serving static content (vs. dynamic content), are on a Unix-system, and have a high-traffic website. In addition, certain things …
NetApp, f1, etc., [I've] used them all. I find using commodity hardware across diverse endpoints running software solutions is cheaper while being more available than individual hardware solutions. and I find Nginx to be the best proxy solution that can do everything we need.
As I mentioned earlier, the Apache HTTP Server has a small disadvantage compared to the competition (NGINX) in terms of performance. If you run websites that really have a lot of visitors, NGINX might be the better alternative.
On the other hand, the Apache HTTP Server is open source and free. Further functionalities can be activated via modules. The documentation is really excellent.
IBM WebSphere Hybrid edition is well-suited for the development and deployment of large enterprise-level applications such as Electronic Health Records that are used in our organization. IBM WebSphere is appropriate for organizations that require strong security and compliance as it provides a high level of security and compliance features. This works well with organizations that are subject to strict regulatory requirements, such as hospitals.
Nginx is well-suited for any web server scenarios, such as web applications, backend or reverse proxy for both application and HTTP requests, and distribution. It is less appropriate for Windows-based applications that run directly on a Windows Server host. In any case, it is very easy to manage, through separate conf files for each application or site you want to host with it.
Street Cred: Apache Web Server is the Founder for all of Apache Foundation's other projects. Without the Web Server, Apache Foundation would look very different. That being said, they have done a good job of maintaining the code base, and keeping a lot of what makes Apache so special
Stability: Apache is rock-solid. While no software is perfect, Apache can parse your web sources quickly and cleanly.
Flexibility: Need to startup your own Webpage? Done. Wordpress? Yup. REST Endpoint? Check. Honeypot? Absolutely.
The default configurations which comes with Apache server needs to get optimized for performance and security with every new installation as these defaults are not recommended to push on the production environment directly.
Security options and advanced configurations are not easy to set up and require an additional level of expertise.
Admin frontend GUI could be improved to a great extent to match with other enterprise tools available to serve similar requirements.
Ease of use in terms of deployment, give simple interface to do simple stuff like Tomcat, JBoss or GlassFish.
Takes long time to start the server.
The Liferay wars need to be decorated and then deployed. Perhaps we could simplify that.
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.
A Liferay war file created using Liferay Developer studio runs fine in Tomcat, however that may not run in WAS 7.x because it needs to be decorated. I had one war for a Liferay portlet with a simple cron job, and had hard time running to WAS server. It was running on the latest free download done on my friends m/c. Other times I have seen that there are issues running a war file that runs on Tomcat but runs on WAS after lot of customization for WAS.
The corporations like this however, the product may need better vibrant community of users where issues can be discussed.
Customer support can be strangely condescending, perhaps it's a language issue?
I find it a little weird how the release versions used for Nginx+ aren't the same as for open source version. It can be very confusing to determine the cross-compatibility of modules, etc., because of this.
It seems like some (most?) modules on their own site are ancient and no longer supported, so their documentation in this area needs work.
It's difficult to navigate between nginx.com commercial site and customer support. They need to be integrated together.
I'd love to see more work done on nginx+ monitoring without requiring logging every request. I understand that many statistics can only be derived from logs, but plenty should work without that. Logging is not an option in many environments.
Mostly we will be renewing unless the strategic direction changes drastically or there are other complelling external circumstances. We've been on a multi year project to modernize our legacy applications and that effort will continue for the foreseeable future.
WebSphere Application Server is used across our organization. Most projects use this for Java products and applications. Being robust and scalable makes it even more usable. We love using WebSphere Application Server due to its configuration management ability made simple and vast across all java related parameters. It is dependent on the features and upgrades and IBM releases some great upgrades to WebSphere Application Server.
This tool is really easy to use and configure. Consumes very less system resources. It is highly modular and configurable. You can easily use it with other tools like certbot for SSLs. You can configure basic security with configuration and headers
I give this rating because there is so much Apache documentation and information on the web that you can literally do anything. This has to do with the fact that there is a huge Open Source community that is beyond mature and perhaps one of the most helpful to be found. The only thing that should hold anyone back from anything is that they can not read. RTFM, my friend. And I must say that the manual is excellent.
IBM was quick to respond when we had an issue with our specific infrastructure. We raised a PMR, which they picked up quickly and updated us about every step of the way. We had an appropriate fix for quite a business critical issue within a fortnight, which was impressive!
Community support is great, and they've also had a presence at conferences. Overall, there is no shortage of documentation and community support. We're currently using it to serve up some WordPress sites, and configuring NGINX for this purpose is well documented.
I has a lot more features, except that IIS is more integrated in a Windows environment. But now with .net core also possible from Apache it would work anywhere really. Only in a full Windows environment where full integration is needed I would chose to go for IIS. Otherwise Apache it is.
Cleo Integration Clould has many bells and whistles; however, when we added more maps and trading partners, it really slowed down. We found that the Cleo support was very slow to respond and there was a language barrier. IBM Websphere had better customer support and its processing was much faster than Cleo Integration Cloud
I have found that [NGINX] seems to perform better throughout the years with less issues although I've used Apache more. I would definitely recommend [NGINX] for any high volume site and I've seen this to usually be the case from most provided web hosts who will pick [NGINX] over alternatives
Continuous uptime of the business applications we manage
It's now much simpler for me to build and deploy cloud-native applications.
Because it can offload for me management and maintenance of the application server to IBM I can focus on the development, deployment and testing of the applications which is more important
By using Nginx, we can host multiple web services on a single server, keeping our infrastructure costs lower.
Nginx maintains our HTTPS connections, allowing us to keep our promise to our customers that their data is safe in transit.
Due to Nginx's extremely low failure rate, our web addresses always return something meaningful, even when individual services go down. In sense, this means we are "always online" and allows us to maintain brand and support our customers even in the face of catastrophe.