Compare Apache Jena and Spark Software 
- Users report that Spark excels in ease of use with a score of 8.7, while Apache Jena falls behind with a score of 7.3. Reviewers mention that Spark's intuitive interface and user-friendly features make it accessible for both technical and non-technical users.
- Reviewers say that Spark has a higher quality of support, scoring 7.6 compared to Apache Jena's 8.1. Users on G2 highlight that Apache Jena's support is responsive but may lack depth in certain technical areas, while Spark's support team is praised for their comprehensive assistance.
- G2 users mention that Spark has a better product direction with a positive score of 7.1, indicating a clear roadmap for future enhancements. In contrast, users report that Apache Jena's product direction score of 6.5 suggests some uncertainty about its future development.
- Users say that Spark's ease of setup is rated at 8.1, making it relatively straightforward to implement. Reviewers mention that Apache Jena, while powerful, can be more complex to set up, which may require additional time and resources.
- Reviewers mention that Spark is particularly strong in meeting requirements with a score of 8.4, indicating that it effectively addresses user needs. In comparison, Apache Jena's score of 8.0 suggests it meets requirements but may not be as comprehensive in certain functionalities.
- Users on G2 report that Spark has a larger market segment focus on enterprise users (38.5% of reviews), while Apache Jena is favored by small businesses (52.9% of reviews). This difference indicates that Spark may offer features more aligned with larger organizations, while Apache Jena caters to the needs of smaller enterprises.
I like the fact its an open source semantic web framework for java.
Because it is java and not everyone uses java in my line of work we dont see much use for Apache Jena other than the few applications we have in the lab.
Easier to implement in comparison to other methods Better documentations
The client itself seemed to have a bit of limited functionality in comparison to other clients (such as Adium) in terms of logging (locally). I would have simply used Adium solely when connecting to the Jabber server, other than it has *limited* fastpath...
I like the fact its an open source semantic web framework for java.
Easier to implement in comparison to other methods Better documentations
Because it is java and not everyone uses java in my line of work we dont see much use for Apache Jena other than the few applications we have in the lab.
The client itself seemed to have a bit of limited functionality in comparison to other clients (such as Adium) in terms of logging (locally). I would have simply used Adium solely when connecting to the Jabber server, other than it has *limited* fastpath...
