july 11, 2007 the forrester wave™: application server...

Making Leaders Successful Every Day

July 11, 2007

The Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, Q3 2007by John R. Rymerfor Application Development & Program Management Professionals

www.forrester.com

© 2007, Forrester Research, Inc. All rights reserved. Forrester, Forrester Wave, RoleView, Technographics, and Total Economic Impact are trademarks of Forrester Research, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies. Forrester clients may make one attributed copy or slide of each figure contained herein. Additional reproduction is strictly prohibited. For additional reproduction rights and usage information, go to www.forrester.com. Information is based on best available resources. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. To purchase reprints of this document, please email [email protected].

For Application Development & Program Management ProfessionalsIncludes a Forrester Wave™

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYForrester evaluated the major application server platform suites and vendors across 175 criteria and found that Oracle received the highest scores across all of the scenarios we evaluated, due to its wide range of features and strong strategy. Microsoft and IBM, among the major players, were also Leaders, though not as strong as Oracle. Oracle rose above the other vendors in five separate customer requirement scenarios for the application server platform category. Our analysis produced two surprises. First, Pegasystems, a vendor focused on the business process management market, was a Strong Performer in two of the scenarios, approaching Big Blue in its scores. Second, Sun Microsystems revealed itself to be a Strong Performer, approaching the status of established player BEA Systems in that regard. Another of the business process management (BPM) and service-oriented architecture (SOA) vendors, Magic Software, was a Strong Performer in that category. JBoss, which has the most attractive pricing by far in this category, fell short of the leading vendors primarily because it has fewer features, as did SAP.

TABLE OF CONTENTSApplication Server Platforms Are The Foundation Of Most IT Strategies

Application Server Platforms Evaluation Overview

Five Views Of The Market: Oracle Stands Out In All Of Them

Vendor Profiles

Supplemental Material

NOTES & RESOURCESForrester conducted questionnaire-based product and strategy research during November and December 2006 and interviewed nine vendors: BEA Systems, IBM, Magic Software, Microsoft, Oracle, Pegasystems, Red Hat’s JBoss division, SAP, and Sun Microsystems, In addition, we interviewed two reference customers for each vendor and 27 user companies.

Related Research Documents“The State Of Application Development In Enterprises And SMBs” February 22, 2007, Data Overview

“Trends 2006-07: Application Server Platforms” October 4, 2006, Trends

“The Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, Q1 2005” March 30, 2005, Tech Choices

July 11, 2007

The Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, Q3 2007Oracle, Microsoft, And IBM Are The Leaders; Pegasystems Surprisesby John R. Rymerwith Mike Gilpin, Larry Fulton, Randy Heffner, and Jacqueline Stone

2

4

8

25

29

www.forrester.com

http://www.forrester.com/go?docid=41389&src=37138pdf





© 2007, Forrester Research, Inc. Reproduction ProhibitedJuly 11, 2007

The Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, Q3 2007 For Application Development & Program Management Professionals

2

APPLICATION SERVER PLATFORMS ARE THE FOUNDATION OF MOST IT STRATEGIES

Application server platforms are the most important category of application platform software for most enterprises.1 An application server platform is infrastructure software for building Web and composite applications and, increasingly, applications based on service-oriented architecture (SOA) design principles. An application server platform integrates an application server, which manages user requests, data access, and business logic, with portal servers and integration/business process management (BPM) servers — and often additional features, as well.

· App server platforms are the most strategic of all application platforms. According to data from Forrester’s Business Data Services, Microsoft’s .NET and Java/J2EE have consistently finished at the top of the list of most commonly used development platforms.2 .NET and Java/J2EE are the core technologies for most application server platforms. Hot new platform options, including Ruby on Rails, Java Spring, and PHP, and new hosted platforms like salesforce.com’s Apex are simply not as important to platform buyers in our surveys yet, and older platforms like 4GLs and host platforms are in declining usage (see Figure 1).

· Application server platforms help customers consolidate to save money. Many customers turn to application server platforms and suites and dump their best-of-breed products. Why? Application server platforms offer higher volume discounts and reduced product integration costs.

· App server platforms are the base for a growing number of solutions. Buyers of many packaged business applications either use application server platforms now or soon will, adding to the importance of this category. Microsoft’s Dynamics packaged applications are based on its .NET platform. NetWeaver is the platform for mySAP. Elements of Oracle Fusion Middleware are the basis for Fusion applications.

Microsoft is the sole supplier of the .NET platform, while BEA, IBM, Oracle, Red Hat/JBoss, SAP, and Sun Microsystems provide application server platforms based on Java/J2EE and its successor, Java EE 5.3 Most enterprises select one of these two platform foundations as the basis for the majority of their custom development and packaged application deployments.4

· Customers have long-term investments in app server platforms. Many customers that use Java/J2EE/Java EE made their initial commitments during 2000 and 2001 and want to ride their investments in skills, organizational development, and data-center infrastructure for many more years. .NET shops are no less committed, although they typically started later than Java/J2EE/Java EE customers.

· App server platform evolution assures future relevance. In both cases, users can expect new features in SOA, Social Computing, and Web 2.0 in new releases of their application server platforms, rather than having to switch to new platforms to obtain those features.5

© 2007, Forrester Research, Inc. Reproduction Prohibited July 11, 2007


3

Figure 1 .NET And Java/J2EE Are The Most Important Platform Foundations

The Largest Three Vendors Dominate But Face Strong Challengers

The application server platform market has two tiers of vendors.

· IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle increasingly dominate the broad platform market. IBM and Oracle vie primarily for the lion’s share of spending on application server platforms by large enterprises. Microsoft dominates spending by medium enterprises but also has an expanding position in large enterprises. Many customers select the largest vendors primarily because of a long-standing relationship or perceived safety as a supplier, as opposed to product features. And as is evident in the Forrester Wave™ data, IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle each have huge numbers of customers and have built the largest partner networks in this market.6

· BEA Systems and SAP are also strong. BEA, the early leader in Java/J2EE application platforms, retains a strong presence in the market, particularly in large-scale and/or performance-critical applications within telecommunications, financial services, and government. Typically, BEA and IBM more than the other vendors compete for these large-scale projects. SAP, the fourth-largest software vendor overall, has a strong position, as well, primarily due to its base of some 30,000 applications customers that are now adopting NetWeaver. Both BEA and SAP have fewer customers and partners than IBM, Microsoft, or Oracle.

Source: Forrester Research, Inc.37138

Base: 566 platform software decision-makers at North American and European enterprises(multiple responses accepted)

North AmericaEurope

Microsoft .NET 46%34%

Other Microsoftplatforms

22%23%

Java, Java EE, J2EE 30%28%

Legacy/midrangeplatforms

9%8%

Legacy/mainframe platforms

9%5%

Proprietary 4GLs 8%4%

Ajax 1%1%

Adobe Flash or Flex 1%3%

Other 27%29%

“For custom-developed applications, which development platforms do you use?”

Source: Business Technographics® North American And European Enterprise Software Survey



4

· Challengers play by different rules. Whereas BEA and SAP compete with sales and product models similar to the three largest vendors, other, often tougher competitors compete by changing the rules of the game. Red Hat’s JBoss division and Sun Microsystems employ open source licenses and development approaches and offer dramatically different pricing terms. JBoss’ product prices are a small fraction of those charged by the largest vendors. Pegasystems and Magic Software compete with platforms for composite applications that use SOA, BPM, and business rules.7 “Pega” and Magic eschew the system developer working in J2EE, for example, in a successful attempt to simplify development of composite applications. TIBCO Software and Software AG entered this market recently, as well, adding further options for customers.

APPLICATION SERVER PLATFORMS EVALUATION OVERVIEW

To assess the state of the application server platform market and see how the vendors stack up against each other, Forrester evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of top platform vendors.

Evaluating A Market That Serves Two Masters

Application server platforms were invented to simplify development of Web applications, and they are evolving from those beginnings to address two distinct sets of requirements:

· Scale up Web applications, and make them highly reliable at an efficient cost. As Web applications grow in usage — as measured by number of requests and/or subscribers — in throughput and in sophistication, the costs of developing and running them can climb fast. Application server platform vendors have responded by adding features designed to eliminate specialized software and coding, speed up data-processing operations, and simplify both scalability and reliability under load.

· Blaze the trail of new SOA applications. The next generation of applications will add distributed computing features and new protocols to HTTP, HTML, XML, Web containers, and other foundations of Web applications. These digital business applications employ service-oriented architectures, sophisticated user experiences, BPM and business rules, IP application protocols, metadata management, event management, and other advanced features.8 These requirements represent the future of application server platforms.

After examining past and related research, user needs assessments, client inquiries, and vendor and expert interviews, we developed a comprehensive (and in the case of standards, a representative) set of evaluation criteria (see Figure 2). Customers evaluated application server platforms for both of the two sets of requirements described above, sometimes at the same time. Thus, this Forrester Wave: evaluation contains criteria to evaluate products from both perspectives, and it provides separate analyses of vendors and their products for large-scale Web applications and for SOA applications. We evaluated vendors and their products against approximately 175 criteria. Given the



5

broad range of features that application server platform suites now contain, these criteria represent the breadth of features included in the suites. For deeper analyses of the integration, BPM, and enterprise service bus (ESB) feature sets of these products, please refer to Forrester Wave evaluations of these product categories.

Figure 2 Evaluation Criteria

Source: Forrester Research, Inc.

Which of the vendor’s products are included in this evaluation?

How well is the platform architected?

Does the platform provide strong features for scalability, availability, and reliability?

Does the platform provide strong application development features and tools?

Does the platform provide strong deployment, administration, and management features?

How strong is the platform’s support for standards and interoperability?

Products included

Architecture

Scalability, availability, and reliability

Application development

Deployment, administration, and management

Standards and interoperability

CURRENT OFFERING

How strong is the vendor’s product strategy?

How strong is the vendor’s corporate or overall strategy?

How strong is the vendor financially?

What is the cost of this product?

Product strategy

Corporate strategy

Financial strength

Pricing and costs

STRATEGY

How large is the vendor’s installed base of customers for the products included in this Forrester Wave?

How extensive are the vendor’s implementation and training services?

How many engineers does the vendor have dedicated to this product? How big is the vendor’s sales presence?

How strongly do technology partners support this product?

Installed base

Services

Employees

Distribution channels

MARKET PRESENCE



6

We grouped the application server platform criteria into three buckets:

· Current offering. These criteria represent the features provided by the vendor within its application server platform suite. They address architectural characteristics, scalability, and reliability; application development; deployment, administration, and management; and standards support and interoperability. A primary concern was how many features the vendor provided within its standard licenses, which is important to clients. Current offering scores are the vertical axis on Wave diagrams. The Forrester Wave’s current offering scores do not measure either product performance or stability and are not a proxy for benchmark tests for those purposes.

· Strategy. These criteria assess the size of the vendor’s partner roster for its platform, key financial data, and pricing approach as indicators of effectiveness. Forrester also included subjective assessments of the vendor’s product and corporate strategy. Strategy scores are the horizontal axis on Wave diagrams.

· Market presence. These criteria include the size of the vendor’s employee and customer bases, as well as sales force and other channels. Market presence scores determine the size of the white circle surrounding each vendor’s dot on the Wave diagram. The Forrester Wave’s market presence scores do not measure market share and are a poor proxy for market-share estimates.

We have also listed the products that we evaluated for each vendor. The pricing analyses are keyed to the products analyzed.

Vendors Evaluated: The Usual Suspects Plus Two Wildcards

Forrester included nine vendors in the assessment: BEA Systems, IBM, Magic Software, Microsoft, Oracle, Pegasystems, Red Hat’s JBoss division, SAP, and Sun Microsystems. (see Figure 3).

· The usual suspects are the largest, best-known platform providers. The list of vendors contains the well-known major platform vendors — BEA, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and to some extent, Sun.

· Red Hat’s JBoss Middleware suite makes its debut in this evaluation. Forrester included JBoss because Red Hat’s application server is so widely used by clients and because the company now has a full application platform suite.

· The wildcards, Pegasystems and Magic, represent alternative platform types. Lastly, Pegasystems and Magic Software each agreed to join the research as representatives of a new breed of platform emerging for composite application and SOA development but not rooted in either .NET or Java/J2EE. These “unconventional” application server platforms integrate with .NET and Java/J2EE. Pegasystems and Magic also compete for different types of customers, with Pega targeting large enterprises and Magic focusing on midmarket enterprises.



7

Figure 3 Evaluated Vendors: Product Information And Selection Criteria


Vendor Products evaluated*Version releasedate range

April 2006 - January 2007

September 2005 - December 2006

October 2006

March 2006 - January 2007

January 2006 - December 2006

January 2007

February 2006 - January 2007

June 2006

May 2005 - January 2007

BEA Systems

IBM

Magic Software

Microsoft

Oracle

Pegasystems

Red Hat/JBoss

SAP

Sun Microsystems

BEA WebLogic Server, BEA WebLogic Portal, BEA Workshop for WebLogic Platform, BEA WebLogic Integration, BEA WebLogic Platform, BEA Workshop Studio, AquaLogic Service Registry, AquaLogic Enterprise Repository, AquaLogic Business Process Management, AquaLogic Enterprise Security, AquaLogic User Interaction, and AquaLogic Service Bus

WebSphere Application Server, WebSphere Application Server Network Deployment, WebSphere Extended Deployment, WAS Community Edition, WebSphere Real Time, WebSphere Process Server, Websphere Registry and Repository, WebSphere Integration Developer, WebSphere Business Modeler, WebSphere Message Broker, Rational Application Developer, and Tivoli Federated Manager

iBOLT (including eDeveloper)

Microsoft Windows Server, .NET Framework, BizTalk Server, Microsoft Office SharePoint Server, Windows SharePoint Services, Visual Studio, and Visual Studio 2005 Team Foundation Server

Oracle Fusion Middleware, Oracle Application Server Enterprise Edition, Oracle SOA Suite, and Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database

SmartBPM Suite

JBoss Application Server, JBoss Portal, Hibernate, JBoss Rules, JBoss jBPM, JBoss Seam, JBoss ESB, JBoss Cache, JBoss Transactions, JBoss Web Services (JBossWS), and JBoss IDE (now JBoss Tools, first release pending)

SAP NetWeaver Platform

Sun Java Enterprise System Release, Sun Java System Portal Server, Sun Java System Web Server, Sun Java System Web Proxy Server, Sun Java System Application Server, Sun Java System Message Queue, Sun Java System Service Registry, Sun Java System Access Manager, Sun Java System Directory Server EE, Java Composite Application Platform Suite, eBAM Studio, eGate Integrator, eInsight Business Process Manager, ETL Integrator, eView Studio, eVision Studio, and eWay Intelligent Adapters

*Complete version details for these products are available in each Forrester Wave™ scorecard



8

Figure 3 Evaluated Vendors: Product Information And Selection Criteria (Cont.)

Each of these vendors has:

· Full application life-cycle coverage. Customers expect an application server platform to provide for development, deployment, and management of complete Web and/or composite applications incorporating user interface, application logic, and data access features.

· A cohesive product or suite of products. An application server platform must be provided by a single vendor as either a single SKU or a suite of products and supported by that vendor.

FIVE VIEWS OF THE MARKET: ORACLE STANDS OUT IN ALL OF THEM

We used our evaluation criteria to assess the vendors and their products using five customer requirements scenarios. These five are the major viewpoints on the market of clients. We’ve provided individual Forrester Wave diagrams for each of these points of view.

1. All platforms evaluated using comparable criteria.

2. Conventional platforms evaluated using only Web application criteria.

3. Conventional platforms evaluated using only SOA criteria.

4. Application server platforms based on Java/J2EE and Java EE evaluated using a cross-section of Web and SOA criteria.

5. All platforms evaluated using SOA criteria and excluding application-server features.

Oracle is a Leader across these five analyses, riding the strength of the extensive features built into its Oracle Application Server and Oracle SOA Suite and its strong strategy and market presence. Microsoft is also a Leader in each of the five analyses, falling short of Oracle in advanced feature

Vendor selection criteria

The vendor offers an application platform for development, deployment, and management of complete composite applications.

The vendor’s platform incorporates user interface, application logic, and data access features at a minimum and may have other features, as well.

Forrester clients mentioned the vendor at least three times in the past year in the context of inquiries about application platforms.

The vendor’s offering is still a common choice and has not been replaced by a next-generation solution.




9

criteria like business event management and real-time. IBM comes next, finishing as a borderline Leader. IBM registered good current offering scores, but compared with the Leaders, IBM’s strategy scores were weighed down by its product costs and modest overall growth rate9.

Scenario No. 1: All Platforms

This scenario includes all of the vendors but excludes the criteria that measure the vendors’ support of either .NET or Java/J2EE as foundation standards — a fruitless exercise.10 The real issue is how well each product interoperates with the other vendors’ platforms and core technology; those criteria are included in this analysis. This omnibus analysis is useful as a landscape of the market. It shows how the big platform vendors relate to one another on both Web application and SOA criteria, and it positions Pegasystems and Magic Software, as well (see Figure 4).

· In the omnibus scenario, Oracle and Microsoft lead the pack; IBM is a borderline Leader. Oracle scores extremely well on the current offering criteria, including both current features and advanced topics like event management, real-time processing, and metadata management. Microsoft also does so, although it falls short of Oracle on some of the advanced features, as well as some architectural coherence criteria (common logs, for example). Microsoft’s lower prices and treatment of all processors as single CPUs, regardless of the number of cores those processors contain, drove its higher strategy scores relative to Oracle.

IBM has the current offering scores of a Leader, but its strategy scores prevent the company from finishing as a full-fledged Leader. IBM’s strategy scores were hurt by its high costs relative to the other vendors, the modest revenue growth that IBM as a whole registered during the four quarters included in this evaluation, and a moderate score for focus. IBM reports that WebSphere and other key software product lines are growing much faster than the overall corporation — a factor that clients should take into account. Forrester’s concern about IBM’s focus is simple: How well can IBM focus on any one of the huge number of products that it has?11

· In the omnibus scenario, Pegasystems, BEA, Sun, and Magic offer competitive options. Among the Strong Performers, Pegasystems, BEA, and Sun stand out, with Magic Software also scoring well. Of these four, BEA is the veteran, having provided mission-critical Java/J2EE platforms to Verizon, Wells Fargo, and many other large organizations for years. BEA has also moved into real-time Java. BEA’s current offering scores highlight the vendor’s decision to partner for caching and composite application management and its relatively slow move to support PHP and event management.

Pegasystems debuts in the application server platform Forrester Wave as a Strong Performer in two of the scenarios. Pega scored well across the board in those scenarios, which is particularly impressive, given that the vendor focuses on SOA and BPM applications as its primary target, rather than large Web applications. Pega registered strong architecture, development, and deployment scores and was hurt by low scores in real-time computing, high-availability features, integral backup and restore, auditing, and support for standards.



10

Sun’s platform grew substantially with its acquisition of SeeBeyond, and the company has spent about a year integrating those products with its other products. The SeeBeyond products, now called the Composite Application Platform Suite (CAPS), provide very strong SOA, integration, and BPM features relative to the competition. Sun’s scores were comparable to those of BEA. Sun is also one of two vendors (JBoss is the other) to embrace open source licensing.

Magic Software, a company focused on midmarket companies and departments within large enterprises, showed that it has a strong platform for many Web and SOA applications. Magic iBOLT and eDeveloper scored well in architecture, development, and deployment but not as well in standards support, auditing, extensibility, real-time computing, backup/restore, and common metadata and patch management.

· In the omnibus scenario, JBoss and SAP trail the pack. Red Hat’s JBoss Division is within shouting distance of Magic Software in this analysis. JBoss’ suite of middleware products scored well in basic platform criteria, and its product costs are very attractive. But JBoss’ position suffered from its small number of development and management tools for composite applications. These are both areas of investment for JBoss. JBoss also suffered from low scores for common metadata and patch management, event management, real-time computing, backup/restore features, support for standards, and interoperability.

SAP was one of the big surprises in the 2004 application server platform evaluation, but the vendor disappointed in this year’s edition of the research. SAP received low scores across the board, emerging as a borderline Strong Performer only. SAP simply moves more slowly to adopt new features than the other vendors in this category. SAP’s current version of its NetWeaver platform is dated 2004. This year, the vendor will begin rolling out new platform features, but they were not available for inclusion in this year’s evaluation. SAP’s strategy scores also suffer from its refusal to reveal its prices, unlike every other vendor in this category.

This evaluation of the application server platform market is intended to be a starting point only. Readers are encouraged to view detailed product evaluations and adapt the criteria weightings to fit their individual needs through the Forrester Wave Excel-based vendor comparison tool.



11

Figure 4 Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, All Vendors, Q3 ’07


Go online to download

the Forrester Wave tool

for more detailed product

evaluations, feature

comparisons, and

customizable rankings.

RiskyBets Contenders Leaders

StrongPerformers

StrategyWeak Strong

Currentoffering

Weak

Strong

Market presence

Sun Microsystems

Figure 4 Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, All Vendors, Q3 ’07

Oracle

Microsoft

IBM

SAP

JBoss

Magic Software

Pegasystems

BEA Systems



12

Figure 4 Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, All Vendors, Q3 ’07 (Cont.)


BEA

Sys

tem

s

IBM

JBos

s

Mag

ic S

oftw

are

Mic

roso

ft

Ora

cle

Pega

syst

ems

SAP

CURRENT OFFERING Products included Architecture Scalability, availability, and reliability Application development Deployment, admin, and management Standards and interoperability

STRATEGY Product strategy Corporate strategy Financial strength Pricing and costs MARKET PRESENCE Installed base Services Employees Distribution channels

3.290.002.583.653.813.003.41

3.164.004.503.001.15

3.643.304.004.602.80

Forr

este

r’sW

eigh

ting

50%0%

20%20%20%20%20%

50%25%25%25%25%

0%30%20%25%25%

4.020.003.965.004.323.842.97

3.234.504.253.400.75

4.884.605.005.005.00

2.770.003.722.632.802.202.50

2.892.752.752.603.45

2.131.602.002.202.80

3.010.003.432.983.402.732.50

3.154.504.250.203.65

2.542.303.002.202.80

3.590.003.504.013.992.583.87

4.494.754.254.204.75

4.634.605.005.004.00

4.670.004.504.794.884.904.30

4.435.004.505.003.20

4.684.605.005.004.20

3.480.003.433.194.284.531.98

3.103.754.002.602.05

2.083.103.002.200.00

2.260.003.461.192.171.622.88

3.093.753.254.201.15

3.805.005.005.000.20

Sun

Mic

rosy

stem

s

3.370.003.812.373.433.503.73

3.223.313.003.403.15

3.984.105.004.202.80

All scores are based on a scale of 0 (weak) to 5 (strong).



13

Scenario No. 2: Conventional Platforms, Web Application Criteria

This scenario focuses only on BEA, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Red Hat/JBoss, SAP, and Sun, and it excludes Pegasystems and Magic Software. The analysis highlights the criteria that are important to large-scale Web applications and suppresses the criteria that are important to SOA applications. Specifically highlighted are: user interface technologies and Web development tools, job scheduling and work management, all high-availability features, automatic server provisioning, and management console. Suppressed are: orchestration container, event-management framework, compensating transactions, independent business rules development, service-orchestration tools, alerts definition, and support for Java standards. .NET and/or Java/J2EE are factored into this analysis because clients often look for these platform standards as they evaluate Web applications (see Figure 5).

· In the Web-focused scenario, Oracle and Microsoft lead the pack; IBM is a borderline Leader. The high-scoring vendors of the omnibus analysis rise to the top in this analysis, as well. The three vendors are positioned in this analysis in about the same way as they are in the omnibus analysis.

· In the Web-focused scenario, BEA and Sun offer competitive options. BEA is solid in this analysis, as expected, but again, its current offering scores were reduced by its reliance on partners for caching and business rules, an advanced feature, as well as lack of support for auditing and operational management of composite applications built on WebLogic and AquaLogic. Sun’s strategy scores are higher than BEA’s, primarily because of its pricing advantages and product availability under open source licenses.

· In the Web-focused scenario, JBoss and SAP lag. JBoss suffers from its low scores in development and management tools in this analysis, which degrade its position relative to the competitors. And SAP’s ranking reflects the problems highlighted in the previous scenario.




14

Figure 5 Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, Conventional Platforms (Web), Q3 ’07






comparisons, and



StrongPerformers

StrategyWeak Strong

Currentoffering

Weak

Strong

Market presence

Oracle

Microsoft

IBM

SAP

JBoss

BEA SystemsSun Microsystems



15

Figure 5 Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, Conventional Platforms (Web), Q3 ’07 (Cont.)




BEA

Sys

tem

s

3.230.002.803.653.932.653.12

3.194.004.503.001.25

3.643.304.004.602.80

Forr

este

r’sW

eigh

ting

50%0%

20%20%20%20%20%

50%25%25%25%25%

0%30%20%25%25%

IBM

4.000.003.815.004.324.142.75

3.234.504.253.400.75

4.884.605.005.005.00

JBos

s

2.510.003.862.252.362.151.92

2.903.002.752.603.25

2.131.602.002.202.80

Mic

roso

ft

3.470.003.594.013.992.503.28

4.434.504.254.204.75

4.634.605.005.004.00

Ora

cle

4.550.004.354.644.884.903.96

4.505.004.505.003.50

4.684.605.005.004.20

SAP

2.250.003.561.192.241.392.89

3.053.503.254.201.25

3.805.005.005.000.20

Sun

Mic

rosy

stem

s

3.220.003.662.223.433.153.64

3.373.313.003.403.75

3.984.105.004.202.80




16

Scenario No. 3: Conventional Platforms, SOA Criteria

This scenario focuses only on BEA, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Red Hat/JBoss, SAP, and Sun, and it excludes Pegasystems and Magic Software. The analysis highlights the criteria that are important to SOA applications and suppresses the criteria for large-scale Web applications. Specifically highlighted are: orchestration container, event-management framework, compensating transactions, independent business rules development, service-orchestration tools, and alerts definition. Suppressed or reduced in weight are: user interface technologies and Web development tools, job scheduling and work management, Web-oriented high-availability features, automatic server provisioning, management console, and support for Java standards. .NET and/or Java/J2EE are factored out of this analysis because that’s how many clients prefer to compare SOA platforms (see Figure 6).

· In the SOA-focused scenario, Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM again rise to the top. Oracle’s position improves, compared with the prior Forrester Wave scenarios, which is a reflection of the strength of its SOA Suite. Oracle built the SOA Suite largely through acquisition but has done a good job of integrating it with the common architectural facilities underlying its Oracle Application Server. Microsoft’s position reflects the strong SOA features, programming model (WCF), and tools that it has added to its platform. IBM again scores well in features, even though it did not include new products like the WebSphere Business Services Fabric and FileNet in the analysis. These products provide leading-edge SOA and BPM features but also add to the cost of an implementation.

· In the SOA-focused scenario, Sun, BEA, and JBoss offer competitive options. The strength of Sun’s CAPS shows through in this analysis, with Sun approaching the status of Big Blue in its current offering and beating IBM on strategy scores. BEA’s position, again, is solid. BEA’s AquaLogic product line gives it strength in SOA and BPM, but its scores suffer from a lack of integration among the elements of its WebLogic and AquaLogic suites and high relative costs.

Lastly, JBoss leaped forward in this analysis from a borderline player among conventional Web platforms to a solid Strong Performer among SOA platforms. JBoss’ improved showing reflects the company’s addition of modules and features for SOA, including independent business rules, an ESB, and an innovative composite-application programming framework called SEAM.

· In the SOA-focused scenario, SAP brings up the rear. SAP’s position as a borderline Strong Performer in this scenario reflects the limitations of NetWeaver 2004s relative to its competitors among conventional platform vendors. But SAP isn’t asleep at the switch: The company will begin rolling out a new SOA and BPM platform based solely on Java/J2EE during Q3 2007. That product was not ready in time for this evaluation.




17

Figure 6 Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, Conventional Platforms (SOA), Q3 ’07


StrongPerformers

StrategyWeak Strong

Currentoffering

Weak

Strong

Market presence

Oracle

Microsoft

IBM

SAP

JBoss BEA Systems

Sun Microsystems






comparisons, and




18

Figure 6 Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, Conventional Platforms (SOA), Q3 ’07 (Cont.)




BEA

Sys

tem

s

3.160.002.203.653.622.933.41

3.064.004.503.000.75

3.643.304.004.602.80

Forr

este

r’sW

eigh

ting

50%0%

20%20%20%20%20%

50%25%25%25%25%

0%30%20%25%25%

IBM

4.000.004.025.004.323.692.97

3.234.504.253.400.75

4.884.605.005.005.00

JBos

s

3.090.003.723.783.112.352.50

2.782.502.752.603.25

2.131.602.002.202.80

Mic

roso

ft

3.690.003.554.503.992.553.87

4.555.004.254.204.75

4.634.605.005.004.00

Ora

cle

4.710.004.504.944.884.954.30

4.385.004.505.003.00

4.684.605.005.004.20

SAP

2.230.003.400.842.051.972.88

3.184.003.254.201.25

3.805.005.005.000.20

Sun

Mic

rosy

stem

s

3.690.004.313.173.433.833.73

3.243.313.003.403.25

3.984.105.004.202.80




19

Scenario No. 4: Application Server Platforms Based On Java/J2EE And Java EE Platforms

This scenario is for clients that want only to evaluate their options among the application server platforms based on Java/J2EE and Java EE. The analysis uses criteria for both Web and SOA applications, as well as support for the Java/J2EE platform specifications. Only BEA, IBM, Oracle, Red Hat/JBoss, SAP, and Oracle are included (see Figure 7).

· In the Java vendor-only scenario, Oracle and IBM are the Leaders. Oracle and IBM have the broadest portfolios among the Java platform vendors, yielding this result. Oracle’s current offering scores are highest, the result of its more aggressive adoption of new Java standards relative to the other vendors.

· In the Java vendor-only scenario, BEA and Sun are the strong competitors, with JBoss rising. BEA’s track record as a provider of Java platforms provides the difference in this analysis. BEA combines a solid collection of features for Web and SOA applications with strong support for the Java standards and a fairly aggressive adoption plan for Java EE 5. Sun, as has been the case in other general analyses, is close to BEA in its position. Sun’s advantages as a SOA platform are muted in this analysis.

If this Forrester Wave were a horserace, JBoss would be coming up on the outside to challenge the field. JBoss still suffers from some product gaps but is close to Sun and BEA as a competitive alternative to the Leaders.

· In the Java vendor-only scenario, SAP is a Strong Performer — but at the back of the pack. For all of the reasons already discussed in this report, SAP falls to the bottom of this analysis, as well. SAP is moving notably more slowly than the other Java vendors in adopting Java EE 5 into its application server platform (NetWeaver). Ironically, SAP was the second big vendor to provide a Java EE 5 implementation to customers, but that implementation was provided outside of NetWeaver in a special developer product.




20

Figure 7 Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms Based On Java/J2EE, Java EE, Q3 ’07






comparisons, and



StrongPerformers

StrategyWeak Strong

Currentoffering

Weak

Strong

Market presence

Oracle

IBM

SAP

JBoss

BEA SystemsSun Microsystems



21

Figure 7 Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms Based On Java/J2EE, Java EE, Q3 ’07 (Cont.)




BEA

Sys

tem

s

3.360.002.653.653.813.003.70

3.204.004.503.001.30

3.643.304.004.602.80

Forr

este

r’sW

eigh

ting

50%0%

20%20%20%20%20%

50%25%25%25%25%

0%30%20%25%25%

IBM

4.100.003.945.004.323.843.38

3.264.504.253.400.90

4.884.605.005.005.00

JBos

s

2.780.003.682.632.802.202.60

3.102.752.752.604.30

2.131.602.002.202.80

Ora

cle

4.710.004.504.794.884.904.47

4.515.004.505.003.55

4.684.605.005.004.20

SAP

2.290.003.531.192.171.622.94

2.893.753.254.200.35

3.805.005.005.000.20

Sun

Mic

rosy

stem

s

3.350.003.812.373.433.503.63

3.123.313.003.402.75

3.984.105.004.202.80




22

Scenario No. 5: All Products As Independent SOA Platforms

The last scenario is for clients seeking a SOA platform that is independent of conventional application servers. Some clients are not interested in the availability of standard Java/J2EE /Java EE platform APIs, for example; they simply want a high-level application development environment for SOA and BPM. This analysis adds Pegasystems and Magic Systems back into picture, highlighting the SOA applications criteria and portability criteria and suppressing criteria that are useful only in evaluating the underlying .NET or Java/J2EE application servers (see Figure 8).

· In the independent SOA scenario, Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM rise to the top once again. Oracle tests and supports its SOA Suite on IBM WebSphere Application Server, WebLogic Server, and JBoss Application Server. Microsoft’s platform is not portable, and IBM has moderate commitments to support third-party application servers. Still, the feature advantages of Microsoft and IBM outweigh their relatively low portability scores.

· In the independent SOA scenario, Pegasystems, Sun, Magic, BEA, and JBoss challenge. The best of the rest is Pegasystems, which tests and supports its SmartBPM platform on BEA WebLogic Application Server, IBM WebSphere Application Server, JBoss Application Server, and Oracle Application Server. Pega’s strong SOA and BPM features are also on display in this analysis. Sun is next, close to Pega. Sun, too, tests and supports CAPS on competing application servers, and this analysis highlights its strong SOA features — although this will change. The next release of CAPS will be available only on application servers that provide the JBI interfaces and so not WebSphere, WebLogic, or JBoss.

Next is Magic, which provides its own proprietary application server with integration links to both Java and .NET. Magic’s strong SOA and BPM features carry it to a solid position in this analysis.

BEA and JBoss are next in this grouping. BEA tests and supports two of its AquaLogic products on WebSphere Application Server and JBoss, so the vendor gets lower scores for portability than the above competitors. JBoss sticks to standards and hopes that its products run on third-party application servers.

· In the independent SOA scenario, SAP has no portability and suffers as a result. The SOA and BPM features included in NetWeaver 2004s are available only on that platform. SAP’s low current offering scores are magnified by a low portability score in this analysis.




23

Figure 8 Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, Independent SOA Platforms, Q3 ’07






comparisons, and



StrongPerformers

StrategyWeak Strong

Currentoffering

Weak

Strong

Market presence

Pegasystems

MicrosoftIBM

SAP

Sun Microsystems

JBossBEA Systems

Magic Software

Oracle



24

Figure 8 Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, Independent SOA Platforms, Q3 ’07 (Cont.)


BEA

Sys

tem

s

IBM

JBos

s

Mag

ic S

oftw

are

Mic

roso

ft

Ora

cle

Pega

syst

ems

SAP



3.180.002.203.653.613.053.41

3.104.004.503.000.90

3.643.304.004.602.80

Forr

este

r’sW

eigh

ting

50%0%

20%20%20%20%20%

50%25%25%25%25%

0%30%20%25%25%

4.060.004.025.004.653.652.97

3.264.504.253.400.90

4.884.605.005.005.00

3.090.003.723.803.092.352.50

3.042.502.752.604.30

2.131.602.002.202.80

3.140.003.583.183.363.082.50

3.304.754.500.203.75

2.542.303.002.202.80

3.640.003.554.513.952.333.87

4.555.004.254.204.75

4.634.605.005.004.00

4.730.004.504.945.004.904.30

4.415.004.505.003.15

4.684.605.005.004.20

3.660.003.723.494.604.531.98

3.054.004.252.601.35

2.083.103.002.200.00

2.160.003.400.841.941.732.88

2.954.003.254.200.35

3.805.005.005.000.20

Sun

Mic

rosy

stem

s

3.720.004.313.323.303.953.73

2.943.013.003.402.35

3.984.105.004.202.80




25

VENDOR PROFILES

Leaders

· Oracle: The most aggressive platform vendor. Oracle is executing very well, expanding its platform and building its market presence. Oracle has built an application platform suite that challenges enterprise powerhouse IBM’s broad features and beats it in cost economics. However, Oracle’s rush to expand its product line has not yet been accompanied by engineering to ensure scalability and reliability in a broad range of application scenarios. Oracle is making investments in scalability and reliability that have started to pay off for some customers. Oracle has a strong vision for the convergence of large-scale Web applications and SOA applications, both with its packaged applications and without them.

Oracle is the third-largest software vendor in the industry behind Microsoft and IBM. The core of Oracle’s market position remains its huge database server product line, and its enterprise applications product line is its second-largest source of revenue. Oracle’s middleware business, which provides the application platform server products evaluated in this Forrester Wave, is its fastest-growing product line.12

· Microsoft: The advantages of vertical integration. Microsoft is aggressive in building its platform — to a point. Microsoft jumped on SOA as a platform trend very early, and the result was Windows Communications Framework, an innovative programming model and a matching set of developer tools with the productivity that Microsoft is famous for providing. But Microsoft has moved more slowly than Oracle and IBM to develop new ideas like business event processing and real-time computing. Microsoft’s platform is made up of different server products but has strong architectural cohesiveness and integration, with a few exceptions. These characteristics are the result of its common foundation — the .NET Framework and Common Language Runtime — and its productive tools build on top of that foundation. The downside of Microsoft’s strategy is that it is a sole-source platform.

Microsoft is the largest software company in the world, drawing revenues from Microsoft Office; the Windows operating system; the Windows platform, including SQL Server, BizTalk Server, and SharePoint Server; email servers; business applications; and various consumer businesses. Microsoft’s Server and Tools Business Unit, which provides its application server platform, has been growing at a very healthy rate within the overall company.13

· IBM: Size matters. Most customers select IBM because they trust the company to solve a big IT problem. IBM has an enormous catalog of software products and the industry’s largest systems integration force, and it takes on the widest range of requirements in the industry. The big range of WebSphere and Tivoli products that IBM included in its platform for this evaluation is illustrative of the range of possibilities — and the potential complexity associated with an IBM platform solution. IBM is usually aggressive in pushing new ideas into its application



26

server platform but has moderated its pace of innovation during the past two years to reduce the number of major upgrades that its customers must accomplish in a given year. Why? The WebSphere Application Server and products based on it are used in many mission-critical applications for which constant change is expensive and risky. IBM’s breadth and depth comes at a price, as indicated by our evaluation.

Through its Software Group, IBM is the second-largest software company behind Microsoft. IBM Software Group provides five major types of software: the WebSphere platforms, DB2 data- and information-management products, Tivoli systems management products, Rational developer tools, and Lotus collaboration platforms. IBM Software Group is growing faster than IBM as a whole, and its high margins balance the generally low margins of IBM’s huge services business.14

Strong Performers

· BEA Systems: “If we build it well, customers will come.” BEA is driven by co-founder and CEO Alfred Chuang’s belief that the best products will win. The company’s early pace of innovation in Java for the Web applications market has slowed in recent years as it focuses on hardening its platforms for mission-critical duty, ease of installation and use, scalability, and related characteristics. The company has also expanded its portfolio of products for SOA, primarily through acquisition. Clients generally report that BEA’s platform products are the easiest to use and are of the best quality of all of the Java/J2EE providers. At the same time, customers complain that BEA’s products are expensive.

BEA has two product lines: the WebLogic Java/J2EE/Java EE platforms and the AquaLogic SOA platforms. The two product lines work in tandem, and BEA will gradually increase the integration between them. Ultimately, however, AquaLogic is meant to be independent of Java application server and also to run on .NET. WebLogic is in many ways the core of the company, but AquaLogic is growing faster.15

· Sun Microsystems: “We really are a software company.” There are a lot of doubts about Sun as a software vendor because the company has pursued the market in fits and starts during the past. Those doubts are outdated. As indicated by strong scores in our evaluation, Sun has assembled a competitive application server platform suite that has attractive cost economics and an open source component, as well. Acquisition of SeeBeyond helped a lot, although Sun spent more than a year integrating and polishing SeeBeyond’s products to create its CAPS suite. Forrester expects Sun to continue to expand its portfolio, but this will probably be done by integrating with interesting open source projects as much as through acquisition.

Software is one of four businesses at Sun, the other three being servers, professional services, and storage. Sun doesn’t yet break out its revenue according to these four categories but has provided “guidance” that its software products are among the fastest-growing in the company



27

and that the strong uptake of the Solaris 10 operating system doesn’t account for all of that growth. Sun overall has recently started to register growth again after years of heavy losses. The overall growth rate isn’t huge but seems to indicate that the company has turned its fortunes around.16

· Pegasystems: Targeting the next wave. Pegasystems is usually the oldest company that clients have never heard of. For most of its history, Pega built financial services solutions based on patented rules-processing technology. Three years ago, Pega entered the platform business with an innovative combination of business rules and BPM. The company’s SmartBPM environment can be used for many applications, but Pega is trying to catch the next wave of business applications based on SOA and BPM. As its scores in our evaluation indicate, Pega has a strong product in most respects, although it won’t pursue the wide range of features that Oracle and IBM will.

Pega targets large enterprises and has a cooperative partnership with IBM to help with that mission. At about $125 million in annual revenues, Pegasystems is much smaller than the big vendors in this category, but its 25% annual growth rate is much higher than most of the other vendors. SmartBPM is the sole business and thus the sole focus of Pega, a factor that customers like about the vendor.17

· Magic Software: Simplification matters. Magic Software is also a veteran in application development that many clients barely know. Like Pegasystems, Magic is pursuing the next wave of applications based on SOA and BPM but is targeting small and medium-size businesses and departments within large enterprises. Magic’s mantra throughout its history has been simplification of application development because of this market focus. Magic’s tools are highly productive, in part because of the strengths of the underlying platform on which they sit. Magic’s scores in this evaluation reflect its tight focus on BPM applications, as opposed to a pursuit of a broad portfolio of features.

Magic is based in Israel and does as much business in Europe as it does in North America. Magic has remade itself several times during its history, which started in the client-server era of the late ’80s. Its latest transition moved the company from reliance on direct sales to a channel-partner model, and recent financial results indicate that the transition is complete. Magic iBolt and eDeveloper will be of interest to groups within enterprises seeking fast productivity and ease of use first and foremost.18

· JBoss: Free access and continuous innovation. The JBoss Division of Red Hat, the leading provider of Linux, is the only vendor in this evaluation with a business model fully rooted in open source. Others also embrace open source within conventional models, but JBoss is “all open source, all the time” now. The Forrester Wave displays the cost benefits that this model provides to customers, but that’s only part of the story. Clients also value the modularity and



28

quality of JBoss’ products. The JBoss Application Server has been a big factor in the Java market for years. JBoss’ scores in our evaluation are modest, reflecting the huge lead that the vendor’s larger competitors have in developing full application server suites. JBoss has the vision for a full suite but will need time to fill its gaps in development, management, and some of the advanced features.

JBoss is now fully part of Red Hat; its founder, Marc Fleury, left the company during 2007. The division also has adopted Red Hat’s release and licensing practices, which have proven successful in the Linux market. These practices are designed to allow new features to flow from the open source projects running JBoss’ various platform modules, while providing a slower pace of “major releases” for customers that can’t tolerate rapid change.19

· SAP: What a difference a product cycle makes. SAP’s low relative scores in our evaluation reflect its position within the planning cycle for the next release of its NetWeaver platform. SAP did well in the 2004 Forrester Wave evaluation because it had a new release of NetWeaver and not as well in 2007 because it did not.20.NetWeaver is the core platform for mySAP 2005, which is the company’s enterprise application release through the year 2010, so it is vital to the vendor. But SAP applications customers tend to move more slowly than customers building custom applications, and SAP’s pace of change tends to be slower than its big competitors.

SAP NetWeaver also faces a transition in leadership during 2007. Shai Agassi, the executive who conceived of the platform and drove it within SAP, left the vendor in April 2007. His successors must decide how aggressively to push NetWeaver as a platform for many applications and not just SAP’s applications.21



29

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Online Resource

The online versions of Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are Excel-based vendor comparison tools that provide detailed product evaluations and customizable rankings.

Data Sources Used In This Forrester Wave

Forrester used a combination of three data sources to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each solution:

· Vendor surveys. Forrester surveyed vendors on their capabilities as they relate to the evaluation criteria. Once we analyzed the completed vendor surveys, we conducted vendor calls where necessary to gather details of vendor qualifications.

· Product demos. We asked vendors to conduct demonstrations of their product’s functionality. We used findings from these product demos to validate details of each vendor’s product capabilities.

· Customer reference calls. To validate product and vendor qualifications, Forrester also conducted reference calls with two of each vendor’s current customers.

The Forrester Wave Methodology

We conduct primary research to develop a list of vendors that meet our criteria to be evaluated in this market. From that initial pool of vendors, we then narrow our final list. We choose these vendors based on: 1) product fit; 2) customer success; and 3) Forrester client demand. We eliminate vendors that have limited customer references and products that don’t fit the scope of our evaluation.

After examining past research, user need assessments, and vendor and expert interviews, we develop the initial evaluation criteria. To evaluate the vendors and their products against our set of criteria, we gather details of product qualifications through a combination of lab evaluations, questionnaires, demos, and/or discussions with client references. We send evaluations to the vendors for their review, and we adjust the evaluations to provide the most accurate view of vendor offerings and strategies.

We set default weightings to reflect our analysis of the needs of large user companies — and/or other scenarios as outlined in the Forrester Wave document — and then score the vendors based on a clearly defined scale. These default weightings are intended only as a starting point, and readers are encouraged to adapt the weightings to fit their individual needs through the Excel-based tool. The final scores generate the graphical depiction of the market based on current offering, strategy, and market presence. Forrester intends to update vendor evaluations regularly as product capabilities and vendor strategies evolve.



30

ENDNOTES1 For more information on application server platforms, see the April 13, 2007, “Application Server Platforms”

report.

2 Source: Business Technographics® September 2006 North American And European Enterprise Software Survey.

3 Technically, the Mono project, an open source implementation of Microsoft’s .NET Framework 1.1 and Common Language Runtime (CLR), is a second source of .NET platforms. However, most Microsoft customers don’t see it this way. They view Mono as incomplete, too risky, or both.

4 Many of the organizations that selected Java/J2EE during the early ’90s did so expecting a high degree of code portability across products from different vendors. These customers wanted freedom of choice among vendors. Forrester has found that this expected benefit has been marginal for two reasons. First, Java/J2EE code portability was poor until 2004-05. Second, many vendors have added platform services outside of the Java/J2EE standards, so the portion of a given application covered by those standards has generally declined.

5 Microsoft has added SOA and Web 2.0 features by expanding its .NET Framework to embrace new features; the Java vendors have done so by expanding the J2EE/Java EE standards through the Java Community Process and by adding proprietary features to their application server platforms.

6 IBM credibly reported having 75,000 customers that use one of the hundreds of WebSphere products. About 18,000 of these customers use WebSphere Application Server. Oracle credibly reported that about 32,000 customers use at least one of the products in its Fusion Middleware line. Microsoft does not report customer counts, but Forrester believes that Microsoft’s installed base of Windows Server 2003, the chief distribution of the .NET Framework, is massive.

7 There’s a new generation of business applications on the way: composites built to respond to business change. These applications will automate business processes and change as those processes respond to changing consumer, competitive, and regulatory demands. See the July 20, 2005, “How Composite Apps Will Change Enterprise Application Development” report.

8 Forrester calls the next generation of IT architectures Digital Business Architecture because they allow enterprises to closely represent their real-world activities in the software they use. A primary purpose of Digital Business Architecture is allowing IT evolution at the speed of business. See the November 7, 2005,

“Digital Business Architecture: IT Foundation For Business Flexibility” report.9 IBM’s scores are based on the features of WebSphere Application Server 6.x ,WebSphere Application Server

Network Deployment (ND) 6.x, WebSphere Integration Developer (WID), and Rational Application Developer (RAD). In addition, IBM’s scores include WebSphere Process Server 6.x, WebSphere Portal 6.x, WebSphere ESB, WebSphere Message Broker, WebSphere XD (Extended Deployment), WebSphere Business Modeler, WebSphere Service Registry and Repository, Tivoli Access Manager, and Tivoli Federated Identity Manager.

10 The vast majority of customers know that Microsoft does not support Java/J2EE and that BEA, IBM, Oracle, Red Hat/JBoss, SAP, and Sun do not support .NET. Thus, it is fruitless to judge Microsoft on whether or not it provides the Java/J2EE specifications in its platform and whether or not the Java/J2EE vendors provide .NET.







31

11 During 2006, Forrester observed a slowing in the pace of innovation in the WebSphere Application Server. IBM’s initial plan, for example, was to ship support for Java EE 5 in early 2008, well after its competitors. IBM has since sped up its planned delivery of Java EE 5 but is still moving more slowly than its competitors on this topic. For clients that need prompt delivery of new Java standards, this is a problem.

12 View the vendor summary for more detailed analysis on how Oracle fared in this evaluation. See the July 11, 2007, “Oracle Is A Leader In Application Server Platforms” report.

13 View the vendor summary for more detailed analysis on how Microsoft fared in this evaluation. See the July 11, 2007, “Microsoft Is A Leader In Application Server Platforms” report.

14 View the vendor summary for more detailed analysis on how IBM fared in this evaluation. See the July 11, 2007, “IBM Is A Leader In Application Server Platforms — Except For Its High Costs” report.

15 View the vendor summary for more detailed analysis on how BEA Systems fared in this evaluation. See the July 11, 2007, “BEA Systems Is A Strong Performer In Application Server Platforms” report.

16 View the vendor summary for more detailed analysis on how Sun Microsystems fared in this evaluation. See the July 11, 2007, “Sun Microsystems Is A Strong Performer In Application Server Platforms” report.

17 View the vendor summary for more detailed analysis on how Pegasystems fared in this evaluation. See the July 11, 2007, “Pegasystems Is A Strong Performer In Two Application Server Platform Scenarios” report.

18 View the vendor summary for more detailed analysis on how Magic Software fared in this evaluation. See the July 11, 2007, “Magic Software Is A Strong Performer For SOA In Application Server Platforms” report.

19 View the vendor summary for more detailed analysis on how Red Hat/JBoss fared in this evaluation. See the July 11, 2007, “Red Hat/JBoss Has To Catch Up In Application Server Platforms” report.

20 In the 2004 Forrester Wave on application server platforms, SAP finished as a Strong Performer with good overall functional scores (despite gaps in the integration of its components and its uneven administration and management features) and good strategy scores. See the March 30, 2005, “The Forrester Wave™: Application Server Platforms, Q1 2005” report.

21 View the vendor summary for more detailed analysis on how SAP fared in this evaluation. See the July 11, 2007, “SAP Is A Strong Performer But Lags Behind The Pack In Application Server Platforms” report.












Forrester Research, Inc. (Nasdaq:

FORR) is an independent

technology and market research

company that provides pragmatic

and forward-thinking advice to

global leaders in business and

technology. For more than 23 years,

Forrester has been making leaders

successful every day through its

proprietary research, consulting,

events, and peer-to-peer executive

programs. For more information,

visit www.forrester.com.

Australia

Brazil

Canada

Denmark

France

Germany

Hong Kong

India

Israel

Japan

Korea

The Netherlands

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States

Headquarters

Forrester Research, Inc.

400 Technology Square

Cambridge, MA 02139 USA

Tel: +1 617.613.6000

Fax: +1 617.613.5000

Email: [email protected]

Nasdaq symbol: FORR

www.forrester.com

M a k i n g L e a d e r s S u c c e s s f u l E v e r y D a y

For a complete list of worldwide locations,visit www.forrester.com/about.

Research and Sales Offices

37138

For information on hard-copy or electronic reprints, please contact the Client

Resource Center at +1 866.367.7378, +1 617.617.5730, or [email protected].

We offer quantity discounts and special pricing for academic and nonprofit institutions.

www.forrester.com