Apache HTTP Server vs. Microsoft System Center

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Apache HTTP Server
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
Apache Web Server (Apache HTTP Server) is an open source HTTP web server for modern operating systems including UNIX and Windows.N/A
Microsoft System Center
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft System Center Suite is a family of IT management software for network monitoring, updating and patching, endpoint protection with anti-malware, data protection and backup, ITIL- structured IT service management, remote administration and more. It is available in two editions: standard and datacenter. Datacenter provides unlimited virtualization for high density private clouds, while standard is for lightly or non-virtualized private cloud workloads.
$1,323
per month
Pricing
Apache HTTP ServerMicrosoft System Center
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Standard Edition
$1323
Datacenter Edition
$3607
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Apache HTTP ServerMicrosoft System Center
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details——
More Pricing Information
Best Alternatives
Apache HTTP ServerMicrosoft System Center
Small Businesses
NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.0 out of 10

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.0 out of 10

No answers on this topic

Enterprises
NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.0 out of 10

No answers on this topic

All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Apache HTTP ServerMicrosoft System Center
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(20 ratings)
8.5
(20 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
7.0
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
9.3
(2 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache HTTP ServerMicrosoft System Center
Likelihood to Recommend
Apache
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.
Read full review
Microsoft
We used a product before that was designed to prevent users making changes and saving files to the desktop computer. This required a renewal of the license. By using SCCM in our environment we were able to discontinue using that product because SCCM allows us to completely restore a machine back to the original configuration. We have taught our users to save their individual work on either a network drive or a cloud drive. By doing this, if we do a re-image of their machine they have lost no data, and it makes for a faster resolution. In some instances having a computer in our SCCM environment it can become cumbersome when creating new users for very specific purposes. It can be done by creating new organizational units and applying new policies but when in a pinch it can be frustrating. For the most part we have tried to make "new" purpose images and groups to at least accommodate a quick install.
Read full review
Pros
Apache
  • 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.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • Provides our users the ability to deploy and manage our own datacenter based on defined software with understandable solutions for storage, compute, networking and security.
  • We are able to update at once all the computers from all departments without having to install the OS on every computer.
  • It allows us to have everything in one place for database management and datacenter inspection as well.
Read full review
Cons
Apache
  • 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.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • Needs web based storefront for requesting new software
  • Needs ability to manage the packaging work flow better
  • Sometimes is slow to download and there is no indication the entire catalog is being loaded, resulting in confused users not being able to find common software in the available list.
Read full review
Usability
Apache
No answers on this topic
Microsoft
It is not user-friendly for the most part. With IT infrastructure, sometimes it cannot handle excess requests. Every few months, you will need an upgrade in terms of server resources to keep up with incoming alerts and requests. This does not happen all of the time, but it does happen when there are too many requests.
Read full review
Support Rating
Apache
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.
Read full review
Microsoft
If I had to dislike something about the system it would be how much it changes once you upgrade. This could be more of a problem of mine since I get used to one way and don't like it when it changes so much. I am enjoying the newest update, but it is a mess when you are actually going through the upgrades.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Apache
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.
Read full review
Microsoft
We previously used a mix of FOG and Clonezilla to image machines. The biggest issues with these products is that changing one piece of the image required you to rebuild the entire image itself. These pieces of software also did not allow you to manage applications and Windows Updates, causing IT to have to constantly touch machines after they were imaged and update or manage them with a much more hands on approach.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Apache
  • Works as intended, so it's less to worry about.
  • Works great on elastic environments (like EC2).
  • As an Open Source project, you can get support for almost any problem you can have.
  • Configuration files, while powerful, can be tricky to dominate for some.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • We have been able to automate our patch management, firmware and other security concerns.
  • We have a standardized "image" ensuring our setup is consistent across the enterprise. This alone has saved us in time to support and time to understand how to use our desktops.
Read full review
ScreenShots